What do you think?
Rate this book
The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III: Multiple Universes, Mutual Assured Destruction, and the Meltdown of a Nuclear Family
Peter Byrne tells the story of Hugh Everett III (1930-1982), whose "many worlds" theory of multiple universes has had a profound impact on physics and philosophy. Using Everett's unpublished papers (recently discovered in his son's basement) and dozens of interviews with his friends, colleagues, and surviving family members, Byrne paints, for the general reader, a detailed portrait of the genius who invented an astonishing way of describing our complex universe from the inside. Everett's mathematical model (called the "universal wave function") treats all possible events as "equally real," and concludes that countless copies of every person and thing exist in all possible configurations spread over an infinity of universes: many worlds. Afflicted by depression and addictions, Everett strove to bring rational order to the professional realms in which he played historically significant roles. In addition to his famous interpretation of quantum mechanics, Everett wrote a classic paper in game theory; created computer algorithms that revolutionized military operations research; and performed pioneering work in artificial intelligence for top secret government projects. He wrote the original software for targeting cities in a nuclear hot war; and he was one of the first scientists to recognize the danger of nuclear winter. As a Cold Warrior, he designed logical systems that modeled "rational" human and machine behaviors, and yet he was largely oblivious to the emotional damage his irrational personal behavior inflicted upon his family, lovers, and business partners. He died young, but left behind a fascinating record of his life, including correspondence with such philosophically inclined physicists as Niels Bohr, Norbert Wiener, and John Wheeler. These remarkable letters illuminate the long and often bitter struggle to explain the paradox of measurement at the heart of quantum physics. In recent years, Everett's solution to this mysterious problem - the existence of a universe of universes - has gained considerable traction in scientific circles, not as science fiction, but as an explanation of physical reality.
436 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
12 people are currently reading
860 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
July 18, 2013
Why would a successful investigative journalist spend three years writing a book about quantum mechanics?
Well, the answer is that he knew he'd found a story. Like most people, I had uncritically accepted the standard platitudes. If you think you understand quantum mechanics, that just shows you don't understand quantum mechanics. Or, as Feynman says in a memorable passage from The Character of Physical Law, don't ask yourself how it can be like that. If you do, you will go down the drain into a blind alley that nobody has escaped from. No one knows how it can be like that.
But isn't this really very odd? There are plenty of difficult subjects in science, and people don't go around saying that it's impossible to understand them in intuitive terms. If you want to know about DNA, or relativistic cosmology, or chaotic systems, no one claims that they're incomprehensible. They just require intelligence and an appropriate investment of effort. Granted, you may not be smart enough to get it; but that goes for everything. Why should quantum mechanics be the great exception?
The central claim of this book is that there is, in fact, a way to understand quantum mechanics which makes perfectly good sense. It's been around for more than 50 years. There are two reasons why it hasn't caught on. The first is that it requires you to accept a major change in your view of the world: that there is not just one universe, but an infinite number of parallel universes, all equally "real", with new ones continually branching off. This is, needless to say, somewhat counterintuitive, but the same can be said of many novel ideas in science. Proponents of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) like to compare themselves with Copernicus. If you are just willing to accept that the Earth is not stationary in the middle of the universe but is a planet like the other planets, a large number of perplexing facts suddenly fall into place and make sense. The Many-Earths Interpretation of the Solar System also appears counterintuitive at first. Once you've got over the initial shock, however, you see that it's very clever; after a while, it almost starts to feel natural. The MWI is not dissimilar. Well, that was the first reason. The second, which is why this book ended up being written by a journalist rather than a scientist, is that it appears there was a determined effort by influential members of the scientific community to marginalize and ridicule the Many-Worlds Interpretation. The people concerned are some of the most revered names in 20th century physics, and the disrespectful way in which Byrne writes about them made me wince more than a few times. But it's hard to deny that he has a case.
As the title suggests, the central figure in the story is Hugh Everett III, a smart young grad student who was doing a PhD under the legendary John Archibald Wheeler in the early 50s. Wheeler mentored several generations of top physicists - his star pupil was Feynman - and he was one of the key people in the field for a long time. Many of his students just took Wheeler's ideas and elaborated them. But Everett was a natural rebel, and wanted to do his own thing. He started looking at the core conceptual issues in quantum mechanics and became convinced that the way people were thinking about them was completely wrong. Above all, he was sure that the whole idea of the "collapse of the wavefunction" was misguided. This was basically the thing that made quantum mechanics incomprehensible. When you looked at classic experiments like the "double slit", you saw that an electron gave every appearance of being in many places at once, as you could tell from the fact that it was apparently able to interact with other copies of itself; but as soon as you performed a measurement, the electron was suddenly just in one place. According to the standard Copenhagen Interpretation, the measurement caused all the other possibilities to disappear. But how could this make sense? Some people (Wheeler was one) guessed that the experimenter's consciousness had some mystical effect on quantum systems. Others preferred not to interpret the equations at all. The math worked: why did we need to worry about what it "meant"?
Everett argued that there was a straightforward explanation. There was no "collapse", and the other possibilities didn't miraculously disappear. They were simply not able to influence each other any more, a conclusion which seemed perfectly consistent with what was known about quantum mechanics. The natural way to conceptualize this was that every quantum interaction made the universe split into multiple copies which quickly separated apart. Critics of the MWI often complain that it violates Occam's Razor; they object to having all these other invisible universes. People who like the theory turn the argument around 180 degrees. They say that you can see the other universes quite clearly for a short time, and there is no reason to believe that all but one of them cease to exist when they stop interacting. It is, rather, the unnecessary "collapse of the wavefunction" which violates Occam's Razor.
Wheeler was intrigued by Everett's idea, and he agreed that the math made sense. But he was an enormous admirer of Niels Bohr, who was the chief architect of the Copenhagen Interpretation, and he felt unable to sign off on Everett's thesis without receiving Bohr's blessing. He made a determined effort to sell MWI to the Great Dane, but Bohr, who was now about 70, found the suggestion bizarre and incomprehensible. Wheeler, who had worshipped Bohr throughout his whole career, was unable to discount his opinion. He forced Everett to emasculate his dissertation and rewrite it to minimize the areas of conflict. Everett, disgusted with the way he felt he had been treated, left academia and went to work for the Pentagon. As we would say today, he went over to the dark side. He rapidly made a name for himself doing strategic planning for nuclear war scenarios; among other things, he worked closely with the diabolical Herman Kahn, widely reputed to be the real-life prototype for Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. He became increasingly addicted to nicotine, alcohol and sex (he chain-smoked and patronized prostitutes), and died of heart failure at the age of 51. But his work lived on, and the MWI's profile has become steadily higher. It's an idea that just won't go away.
Peter Byrne, the author of this book, has done a great deal of work tracking down the various tangled strands of the story. He read through all of Everett's papers, which had been sitting in a California basement for 25 years, and he interviewed most of the surviving people who knew Everett. He has also spent a lot of time talking to physicists who like the Many-Worlds Interpretation. Some reviewers complain that there are mistakes in the science. That may be true (I am for example uncertain whether Byrne properly understands how Hilbert spaces are used in quantum mechanics, or if he knows what a Lebesgue measure is). But as far as I'm concerned, what's much more interesting is how much he seems to be getting right. My impression is that there are quite a few scientists who are reluctant to come out and say openly what they think about Everett, who is still rather controversial; they prefer to have their opinions ascribed to Byrne. And, whatever people may say in public, there is no doubt that Everett is being taken seriously. A quick look at Google Scholar shows over 2200 citations of his thesis: this is not the kind of attention that a fringe theory is going to attract.
The Many-Worlds Interpretation is one of the most interesting and thought-provoking ideas in modern science. If you want to know about the mathematical and philosophical details, I warmly recommend David Wallace's The Emergent Multiverse . But if you want an unputdownable human account written in layman's language, then get Byrne. This is investigative journalism at its very finest.
__________________________________
Much as I liked the book, it is fair to warn the prospective buyer that the copy-editing is quite extraordinarily careless. There are slips and errors everywhere: the same name can be spelled differently in two chapters, "its" is sometimes confused with "it's", "xenophobic" is once spelled with a Z (my personal favorite), and a couple of sentences are just mangled completely, looking as though they were interrupted halfway through an edit. I honestly don't understand it. What happened?
Well, the answer is that he knew he'd found a story. Like most people, I had uncritically accepted the standard platitudes. If you think you understand quantum mechanics, that just shows you don't understand quantum mechanics. Or, as Feynman says in a memorable passage from The Character of Physical Law, don't ask yourself how it can be like that. If you do, you will go down the drain into a blind alley that nobody has escaped from. No one knows how it can be like that.
But isn't this really very odd? There are plenty of difficult subjects in science, and people don't go around saying that it's impossible to understand them in intuitive terms. If you want to know about DNA, or relativistic cosmology, or chaotic systems, no one claims that they're incomprehensible. They just require intelligence and an appropriate investment of effort. Granted, you may not be smart enough to get it; but that goes for everything. Why should quantum mechanics be the great exception?
The central claim of this book is that there is, in fact, a way to understand quantum mechanics which makes perfectly good sense. It's been around for more than 50 years. There are two reasons why it hasn't caught on. The first is that it requires you to accept a major change in your view of the world: that there is not just one universe, but an infinite number of parallel universes, all equally "real", with new ones continually branching off. This is, needless to say, somewhat counterintuitive, but the same can be said of many novel ideas in science. Proponents of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) like to compare themselves with Copernicus. If you are just willing to accept that the Earth is not stationary in the middle of the universe but is a planet like the other planets, a large number of perplexing facts suddenly fall into place and make sense. The Many-Earths Interpretation of the Solar System also appears counterintuitive at first. Once you've got over the initial shock, however, you see that it's very clever; after a while, it almost starts to feel natural. The MWI is not dissimilar. Well, that was the first reason. The second, which is why this book ended up being written by a journalist rather than a scientist, is that it appears there was a determined effort by influential members of the scientific community to marginalize and ridicule the Many-Worlds Interpretation. The people concerned are some of the most revered names in 20th century physics, and the disrespectful way in which Byrne writes about them made me wince more than a few times. But it's hard to deny that he has a case.
As the title suggests, the central figure in the story is Hugh Everett III, a smart young grad student who was doing a PhD under the legendary John Archibald Wheeler in the early 50s. Wheeler mentored several generations of top physicists - his star pupil was Feynman - and he was one of the key people in the field for a long time. Many of his students just took Wheeler's ideas and elaborated them. But Everett was a natural rebel, and wanted to do his own thing. He started looking at the core conceptual issues in quantum mechanics and became convinced that the way people were thinking about them was completely wrong. Above all, he was sure that the whole idea of the "collapse of the wavefunction" was misguided. This was basically the thing that made quantum mechanics incomprehensible. When you looked at classic experiments like the "double slit", you saw that an electron gave every appearance of being in many places at once, as you could tell from the fact that it was apparently able to interact with other copies of itself; but as soon as you performed a measurement, the electron was suddenly just in one place. According to the standard Copenhagen Interpretation, the measurement caused all the other possibilities to disappear. But how could this make sense? Some people (Wheeler was one) guessed that the experimenter's consciousness had some mystical effect on quantum systems. Others preferred not to interpret the equations at all. The math worked: why did we need to worry about what it "meant"?
Everett argued that there was a straightforward explanation. There was no "collapse", and the other possibilities didn't miraculously disappear. They were simply not able to influence each other any more, a conclusion which seemed perfectly consistent with what was known about quantum mechanics. The natural way to conceptualize this was that every quantum interaction made the universe split into multiple copies which quickly separated apart. Critics of the MWI often complain that it violates Occam's Razor; they object to having all these other invisible universes. People who like the theory turn the argument around 180 degrees. They say that you can see the other universes quite clearly for a short time, and there is no reason to believe that all but one of them cease to exist when they stop interacting. It is, rather, the unnecessary "collapse of the wavefunction" which violates Occam's Razor.
Wheeler was intrigued by Everett's idea, and he agreed that the math made sense. But he was an enormous admirer of Niels Bohr, who was the chief architect of the Copenhagen Interpretation, and he felt unable to sign off on Everett's thesis without receiving Bohr's blessing. He made a determined effort to sell MWI to the Great Dane, but Bohr, who was now about 70, found the suggestion bizarre and incomprehensible. Wheeler, who had worshipped Bohr throughout his whole career, was unable to discount his opinion. He forced Everett to emasculate his dissertation and rewrite it to minimize the areas of conflict. Everett, disgusted with the way he felt he had been treated, left academia and went to work for the Pentagon. As we would say today, he went over to the dark side. He rapidly made a name for himself doing strategic planning for nuclear war scenarios; among other things, he worked closely with the diabolical Herman Kahn, widely reputed to be the real-life prototype for Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. He became increasingly addicted to nicotine, alcohol and sex (he chain-smoked and patronized prostitutes), and died of heart failure at the age of 51. But his work lived on, and the MWI's profile has become steadily higher. It's an idea that just won't go away.
Peter Byrne, the author of this book, has done a great deal of work tracking down the various tangled strands of the story. He read through all of Everett's papers, which had been sitting in a California basement for 25 years, and he interviewed most of the surviving people who knew Everett. He has also spent a lot of time talking to physicists who like the Many-Worlds Interpretation. Some reviewers complain that there are mistakes in the science. That may be true (I am for example uncertain whether Byrne properly understands how Hilbert spaces are used in quantum mechanics, or if he knows what a Lebesgue measure is). But as far as I'm concerned, what's much more interesting is how much he seems to be getting right. My impression is that there are quite a few scientists who are reluctant to come out and say openly what they think about Everett, who is still rather controversial; they prefer to have their opinions ascribed to Byrne. And, whatever people may say in public, there is no doubt that Everett is being taken seriously. A quick look at Google Scholar shows over 2200 citations of his thesis: this is not the kind of attention that a fringe theory is going to attract.
The Many-Worlds Interpretation is one of the most interesting and thought-provoking ideas in modern science. If you want to know about the mathematical and philosophical details, I warmly recommend David Wallace's The Emergent Multiverse . But if you want an unputdownable human account written in layman's language, then get Byrne. This is investigative journalism at its very finest.
__________________________________
Much as I liked the book, it is fair to warn the prospective buyer that the copy-editing is quite extraordinarily careless. There are slips and errors everywhere: the same name can be spelled differently in two chapters, "its" is sometimes confused with "it's", "xenophobic" is once spelled with a Z (my personal favorite), and a couple of sentences are just mangled completely, looking as though they were interrupted halfway through an edit. I honestly don't understand it. What happened?
July 2, 2025
✦ Multiverse Theory, Military Simulations, and One Tragic Genius..
I’m someone who’s always been fascinated by scientific theories—especially the ones that challenge conventional thinking. With a strong theoretical focus in my studies, I’ve spent a lot of time exploring quantum mechanics, so naturally, I was drawn to Hugh Everett’s Many-Worlds Interpretation. I already understood the basics of the theory, Everett’s idea that every possible outcome of a quantum event actually happens in a branching universe felt like science fiction at first… until you realize it's grounded in math. And I wanted to dive deeper—not just into the science, but into the mind that came up with it. This biography delivered exactly that.
Hugh Everett III was a brilliant mind who, while still a student himself, came up with one of the most radical interpretations of quantum theory:that the wave function doesn’t collapse—it just keeps branching, creating a near-infinite number of parallel universes. No randomness. No observer deciding the outcome. Just pure determinism... across many worlds.
What struck me is how ahead of his time Everett was—and how harshly the scientific community responded. His ideas were dismissed, even ridiculed, and he ended up leaving academia entirely. He spent the rest of his career working on Cold War military strategy, designing nuclear war simulations for the U.S. government. There’s something incredibly ironic and sad about someone who believed in infinite outcomes helping plan for total destruction.
This book doesn’t just explain the theory (though it does a great job of breaking it down); it also dives into Everett’s personal life, which was equally complex. Emotionally distant, hyper-logical, and often disconnected from those around him, Everett’s personality mirrored his scientific thinking: precise, detached, and painfully self-contained. His family, especially his son Mark (from the band Eels), was left to make sense of the emotional fallout.
As a student, I appreciated how Byrne connected the science to the man. It's not just about equations—it's about how ideas are received, how they evolve, and how they affect the people who create them. This biography made me think not only about quantum mechanics, but also about legacy, rejection, and how even revolutionary ideas can be ignored for decades.
🧠 What did he discover?
Hugh Everett proposed the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics in 1957 as part of his PhD thesis. It was a direct response to the “measurement problem” in quantum theory.
Here’s the core idea:
In standard quantum mechanics, when a measurement is made, the wave function "collapses" to a single outcome. But Everett argued: No collapse happens. Instead, every possible outcome of a quantum event actually occurs, each in a different, parallel universe.
~Example:
If you measure a particle’s spin and it could be up or down, then:
In one universe, it's spin up.
In another, it's spin down.
Both realities exist, but in separate, non-interacting branches of the universe.
So instead of randomness and collapse, the universe just constantly splits into multiple, coexisting versions.
He didn’t just “discover” this in a lab—it was theoretical, based on the math of quantum wave functions and logic. But it changed the way we could think about quantum reality.
🧬 Why was this so important?
At the time, mainstream physicists—especially Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen school—rejected his idea. They preferred the “collapse” interpretation. Everett was largely ignored and discouraged from pursuing physics further.
Disillusioned, he left academia and went into military strategy, helping design nuclear war game models for the U.S. government. Ironically, the man who believed in infinite realities ended up working on scenarios for global annihilation.
- What happened to him?
He never returned to academic physics.
He died young, at 51, of heart failure.
His work remained in obscurity for decades.
Only years later did physicists like Bryce DeWitt revive and promote Many-Worlds, making it a serious alternative in quantum foundations.
His personal life was also full of emotional distance. He was brilliant but cold—more comfortable with math than with people. His son, Mark, barely knew him growing up and only began exploring his father’s legacy after his death.
🧪 In essence:
Hugh Everett didn’t create a law, but he proposed one of the most fascinating and controversial interpretations of quantum mechanics—that all possible outcomes happen, just in different universes. His life was a mix of genius, rejection, isolation, and quiet revolution. The book shows how someone can be ahead of their time—and how painful that can be.
In a nutshell:
This is the biography of a man whose ideas could have rewritten physics, but whose life unraveled in heartbreaking ways. If you like science, Cold War politics, or just want to understand the kind of mind that dreams up multiple universes but can’t face the one he's in—this one’s for you.
This book offered me both the scientific depth I was looking for and a moving exploration of the cost of genius—how a mind so focused on the multiverse could struggle so much in one small, personal world. If you're someone who’s ever been caught between the analytical and the emotional, the logical and the human—this book will resonate deeply.If you’re interested in quantum theory, the philosophy of science, or the human side of intellectual pursuit, this is a must-read.
I’m someone who’s always been fascinated by scientific theories—especially the ones that challenge conventional thinking. With a strong theoretical focus in my studies, I’ve spent a lot of time exploring quantum mechanics, so naturally, I was drawn to Hugh Everett’s Many-Worlds Interpretation. I already understood the basics of the theory, Everett’s idea that every possible outcome of a quantum event actually happens in a branching universe felt like science fiction at first… until you realize it's grounded in math. And I wanted to dive deeper—not just into the science, but into the mind that came up with it. This biography delivered exactly that.
Hugh Everett III was a brilliant mind who, while still a student himself, came up with one of the most radical interpretations of quantum theory:that the wave function doesn’t collapse—it just keeps branching, creating a near-infinite number of parallel universes. No randomness. No observer deciding the outcome. Just pure determinism... across many worlds.
What struck me is how ahead of his time Everett was—and how harshly the scientific community responded. His ideas were dismissed, even ridiculed, and he ended up leaving academia entirely. He spent the rest of his career working on Cold War military strategy, designing nuclear war simulations for the U.S. government. There’s something incredibly ironic and sad about someone who believed in infinite outcomes helping plan for total destruction.
This book doesn’t just explain the theory (though it does a great job of breaking it down); it also dives into Everett’s personal life, which was equally complex. Emotionally distant, hyper-logical, and often disconnected from those around him, Everett’s personality mirrored his scientific thinking: precise, detached, and painfully self-contained. His family, especially his son Mark (from the band Eels), was left to make sense of the emotional fallout.
As a student, I appreciated how Byrne connected the science to the man. It's not just about equations—it's about how ideas are received, how they evolve, and how they affect the people who create them. This biography made me think not only about quantum mechanics, but also about legacy, rejection, and how even revolutionary ideas can be ignored for decades.
🧠 What did he discover?
Hugh Everett proposed the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics in 1957 as part of his PhD thesis. It was a direct response to the “measurement problem” in quantum theory.
Here’s the core idea:
In standard quantum mechanics, when a measurement is made, the wave function "collapses" to a single outcome. But Everett argued: No collapse happens. Instead, every possible outcome of a quantum event actually occurs, each in a different, parallel universe.
~Example:
If you measure a particle’s spin and it could be up or down, then:
In one universe, it's spin up.
In another, it's spin down.
Both realities exist, but in separate, non-interacting branches of the universe.
So instead of randomness and collapse, the universe just constantly splits into multiple, coexisting versions.
He didn’t just “discover” this in a lab—it was theoretical, based on the math of quantum wave functions and logic. But it changed the way we could think about quantum reality.
🧬 Why was this so important?
At the time, mainstream physicists—especially Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen school—rejected his idea. They preferred the “collapse” interpretation. Everett was largely ignored and discouraged from pursuing physics further.
Disillusioned, he left academia and went into military strategy, helping design nuclear war game models for the U.S. government. Ironically, the man who believed in infinite realities ended up working on scenarios for global annihilation.
- What happened to him?
He never returned to academic physics.
He died young, at 51, of heart failure.
His work remained in obscurity for decades.
Only years later did physicists like Bryce DeWitt revive and promote Many-Worlds, making it a serious alternative in quantum foundations.
His personal life was also full of emotional distance. He was brilliant but cold—more comfortable with math than with people. His son, Mark, barely knew him growing up and only began exploring his father’s legacy after his death.
🧪 In essence:
Hugh Everett didn’t create a law, but he proposed one of the most fascinating and controversial interpretations of quantum mechanics—that all possible outcomes happen, just in different universes. His life was a mix of genius, rejection, isolation, and quiet revolution. The book shows how someone can be ahead of their time—and how painful that can be.
In a nutshell:
This is the biography of a man whose ideas could have rewritten physics, but whose life unraveled in heartbreaking ways. If you like science, Cold War politics, or just want to understand the kind of mind that dreams up multiple universes but can’t face the one he's in—this one’s for you.
This book offered me both the scientific depth I was looking for and a moving exploration of the cost of genius—how a mind so focused on the multiverse could struggle so much in one small, personal world. If you're someone who’s ever been caught between the analytical and the emotional, the logical and the human—this book will resonate deeply.If you’re interested in quantum theory, the philosophy of science, or the human side of intellectual pursuit, this is a must-read.
December 13, 2010
Fantastic, but, then again: I wrote it.
November 12, 2020
Moved to gwern.net
February 8, 2021
Hugh Everett his work in physics and wargaming for nuclear war and his family life reads like tragic science fiction like a Phillip K. Dick novel. Coming from a fairly comfortable but not particularly eminent WASP background Everett got himself into Princeton with his talent and creative genius in the early days when the postwar meritocracy was becoming a thing. Snarky and Sardonic and aloof and kind of not giving a shit (a quality I like in moderate doses) he came under the tutelage of John Archibald Wheeler who was always looking for new ideas and quite creative himself (writing a book on the idea that physics was information "it to bit" and coining the term "black hole". At the time in the fifties, the hegemonic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics was the Copenhagen interpretation set up in the early days of QM(quantum mechanics) in the twenties and thirties by the charismatic Niels Bohr one of the early pioneers of QM. Everett being a creative young man found problems with the orthodox interpretation of QM especially the wavefunction collapse or sometimes referred to as the measurement problem of QM (see Quantum Reality, By Baggott). Everett dispensed with wavefunction collapse entirely and his interpretation is that all measurement probabilities are realized in different branches of the wavefunction that defines quantum probabilities in an experiment (squaring the probability amplitude or Born rule). Wheeler saw the merits of this approach and arranged for Everett to travel to Europe to talk to Bohr the pope of the Copenhagen interpretation and try to show him his approach. It didn't go well and Everrett seeing the writing on the wall saw no future as an academic physicist. He then disappeared into the Pentagon working on Nuclear war planning. He to all outward appearance had a successful postwar family life and professional career as a Pentagon consultant and nuclear war planner. Of course, he enjoyed the esteem of his peers who appreciated his strong skills at his job. But one wonders what he was thinking while gaming out a nuclear apocalypse that according to his own many-worlds interpretation was actually taking place on other branches of the wave function. I suspect he bought the many-worlds interpretation he created because he didn't give a shit about his health hygiene a pitfall I share with him and his belief system (he smoked and drank too much). I suspect many-worlds interpretation can give someone who buys it a devil may care attitude up to a point(to understand why google "quantum immortality"). Anyway, his snarky, wise-ass and aloof personality were hard on his family who suffered greatly after his death. On the good side his projections of how bad nuclear war would actually be that he did in the 1970s probably justified the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction which kept presidents and the brass more gun shy about launching nukes. Probably we survived the eighties although Hugh Everett didn't at least in our branch of the wavefunction due to his projections on how bad WWIII would probably be. His interpretation was taken on specially by the Oxford Philosophy of Science department and is probably the second-place contender challenging Copenhagen. His family had a tougher fate his wife(by illness) and his daughter (by her own hand) did follow Hugh to an early grave. His son, Mark, had a moderately successful career in an Alt-rock band "the Eels".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QTZZUjn...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QTZZUjn...
June 9, 2017
I saw the special on NOVA about his son Mark Everett and the Band the EELs
I used that DVD now in teaching basic physics. Good book about the life and times of a inovative man and the sad effects on his family. A VERY good history of the development of quantum mechanics. Byrne gets in a few left hooks but its overall a very good book. Densely packed big words. read slowly and with NO beer near by.
I used that DVD now in teaching basic physics. Good book about the life and times of a inovative man and the sad effects on his family. A VERY good history of the development of quantum mechanics. Byrne gets in a few left hooks but its overall a very good book. Densely packed big words. read slowly and with NO beer near by.
August 9, 2016
The descriptions of his interesting ideas on physics and game theory left me putting down this book at times in favor of other materials to gain more detail. The stories of the man himself make him seem like a prick. An absent father, an unfaithful husband, and a self-obsessed military contractor.
Peter Byrne did a decent investigative job here, but there's only so much enjoyment to be had reading about this guy.
Peter Byrne did a decent investigative job here, but there's only so much enjoyment to be had reading about this guy.
December 3, 2023
I recently finished reading the book, The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III: Multiple Universes, Mutual Assured Destruction, and the Meltdown of a Nuclear Family, by Peter Byrne. This is my review of the book, along with an extension to explain and answer a question that arises as soon as we accept the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I propose that the universe is solidly packed, with no nothingness. I propose that nothingness is an Illusion.
In this book, Peter Byrne has tried to cover three issues:
1. A unique elucidation of Quantum Mechanics called Many Worlds Interpretation, attributed to Hugh Everett III
2. Hugh Everett’s post-PhD career that had nothing to do with quantum mechanics, but with operations research which tried to rationalize cold war with Russia, and of destruction by warfare (even if it had the potential for Mutual Assured Destruction—MAD), so that the best can survive.
3. Hugh Everett’s personal life, and his immediate family of wife, son, and daughter.
I was most interested in the first issue, partly the third, and least in his life as a weapons analyzer, and focused accordingly while reading the book. Here is a review.
Even to this day, there are two main axioms in quantum theory:
1. The dynamics of subatomic particles (for that matter, even up to molecules) are defined and governed by Schrodinger’s equations which define a continuous wave function as a superposition of all possible states in which a (subatomic) particle can exist.
2. When such a particle interacts with an observer, or when a measurement is made as to its position or any such property, the wave function suddenly and mysteriously collapses into one of the states. The state to which the reduction happens can only be estimated probabilistically (using Born postulate) as the square of the modulus of the wave function that was governing the particle till now. Determinism of how the world operates is lost.
It is thought that quantum mechanics governs the physics of the micro size, and general relativity, of the macro world, but really, the demarcation—defined by axiom 2—exists because physicists do not know how to combine the two.
To introduce the quantum mechanics theory as simply as possible, consider the Schrodinger’s cat paradox. In a closed box is a cat along with a tiny bit of radioactive material which decays and emits an alpha particle. The way these radioactive particles decay is probabilistic. In other words, within a timespan that is considerably less than the half-life of the material, we cannot deterministically say that a decay has happened. For example, radon-222 has a half-life of 3.82 days. Within the first two days of the experiment, we cannot say for sure that the radon has decayed into the decay products polonium and alpha particle. The released alpha particle, if the decay does happen, is detected by a Geiger counter which, upon detecting, releases a hammer which cracks open a vial of poison that kills the cat.
Now the radioactive material, being micro, subatomic particles, are governed by Schrodinger’s wave equations (postulate 1) as per which it can exist in a superposition of decayed as well as not-decayed state. Only when it is observed—or a measurement is made—do we know whether it is decayed or not. Therefore, until we open the box, and an observation is made, the vial is also in a superposition of cracked and not cracked and the cat is also in superposition state of being dead and alive at the same time! This is a well-known paradox in quantum mechanics which is still unsolved and exemplifies the problem of marrying the differing views at the quantum and macro levels.
According to the second postulate, when the box is opened and an observation is made (i.e., a measurement is made), immediately the wave function (which, remember, is in a superposition of multiple states) collapses probabilistically into one of the states—either the radioactive material has decayed or not, which leads to a cracked vial or an intact one. Correspondingly, the cat is either dead or alive, and we confirm the state: cat is dead, so we weep; or the cat is not dead, so we rejoice! This interpretation is called the Copenhagen interpretation and is due to Niels Bohr. Although scientists have been using it all along and it has worked, IT IS ONLY A POSTULATE, AN AXIOM, and there is no logical or rational reasoning. In addition, mathematically it is abhorrent because of the discontinuity in the smooth wave function, with a sudden sharp change—magically—to one of the superposed states! Even though this interpretation is accepted for all practical purposes, physicists despise it for those reasons of mysticism and magic. Furthermore, this step change seems to be the root cause why quantum mechanics and gravitation (which is a classical, continuous theory) do not mix well. Therefore, to have a single, unified quantum gravitational theory that can explain the behavior of all sized particles—micro as well as macro—this postulate must be dropped. Fewer the axioms, better the theory is.
Hugh Everett did exactly that. He let the wave function run its course continuously and proposed that when a decoherence of a particle that is existing in a superposed state of multiple states into one of the states happens—i.e., an observation or measurement happens—the world splits into multiple worlds! In each of the newly spawned worlds, the particle goes into one of the states of the superposed states. In case of the Schrodinger’s cat, there are two world that are spawned from the original: in one world, the radioactive substance has not decayed, the vial is not broken, and the cat is alive, and in the other world, the poison has been released and the cat is dead. The human observer (and the rest of the world) gets copied into each of the two new worlds. Therefore, if, upon opening the box, we see the cat is dead, then it means we happen to be in the split world wherein the cat is dead (and the other split world would have the live cat). If we find the cat is alive, that means we happen to be in that world where the cat is alive, and there exists another split world where the cat is dead! According to this Theory of Universal Wave Function (as Everett referred to it as), the universal wave function represents a superposition of everything that is physically possible, and as this wave function propagates beyond observation and measurement, every possibility that can potentially exist, exists in some world. In that sense, Many Worlds interpretation is a deterministic theory which would probably have appealed to Einstein. From Everett’s universal wave function, the Born rule to evaluate the probability of which state the observer (prior to splitting) will end up with can be derived. Everett claims to have derived the Born rule of probability (instead of postulating it) by which each of the superposed states are formed, starting from the superposed universal wave function. However, this derivation has not been proved beyond doubt and is a bone of contention.
The multiple worlds are inaccessible to each other, ever. This conclusion is based on information theoretic explanation of Many Worlds Interpretation. When a superposed wave function Ψ=Ψ_1+Ψ_2 splits into two worlds, Ψ_1 and Ψ_2, each of these new worlds have lost information about the other, i.e., Ψ_1 about Ψ_2 and vice versa and hence cannot access each other.
Peter Byrne has done a good job explaining the details of the Many Worlds Interpretation, along with the history. It would help to have some knowledge of basic quantum mechanics. If you are familiar with Young’s double slit experiment, you can get something from the book.
After the Many Worlds Interpretation theory was proposed—which directly opposed Niels Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation—it was not received well. Everett’s own doctoral advisor, John Wheeler, was a big shot in physics, specializing in both quantum mechanics and general relativity. So, this theory was the right tool for him to combine quantum mechanics and gravity, to come up with quantum gravity. However, he was a fan of Bohr (a bad thing to be, as a scientist) and did not want to offend him! Though he worked very hard to convince Bohr that Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation theory encompasses Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation as a special case—it is valid in our own world—Bohr and his followers did not accept it. In the end, after Everett got his PhD (in 1957), Wheeler recanted and stopped supporting Everett, much against his liking. I wish Wheeler had stood by Everett even if the theory might be proved wrong. (As of now, it has not yet been.) He made Everett cut down his thesis from 137 pages to 36! He also had the word “split” removed from the thesis, though Everett snuck one occurrence surreptitiously. The complete 137-page thesis (which has three occurrences of “split,” but his notes have many) was published by Princeton University fifteen years later, in 1973. Today, there are quite a few quantum gravity physicists who support Many Worlds Interpretation, and their number is growing.
That much about Many Worlds Interpretation. After his PhD, Everett went to work for the US defense system, developing algorithms to analyze nuclear attacks from Russia, during the cold war. There too he contributed greatly to game theory, developing the theory of generalized Lagrange multipliers for systems with too many variables which even vary based on dynamic feedback.
Everett’s personal life was quite a mess. He was a very non-typical father, husband, and a man. Both he and his wife led a swinging lifestyle and did not pay enough attention to their kids—a boy, Mark Everett, and a girl, Liz. Extremely intelligent, but unfortunately, he was also an alcoholic, a chain smoker, and a womanizer. He died quite young—at fifty-two—of a massive heart attack, and when the then nineteen-year-old Mark tried to lift him up, he realized that this was the first time he had even touched his father! His daughter was wont to partying, running from one man to another for sex and attention, became a drug addict, depressed, and messed up her life and finally committed suicide, leaving behind a note that she wished her ashes to be thrown out with the garbage (just like how the atheist Hugh Everett wanted, with his) so that she might "end up in the correct parallel universe to meet up with Daddy.” Very sad meltdown of a family. Heart wrenching every time I think of them and reminds me of the doctor’s monologue in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, “God, God, forgive us all!”—a helpless, forlorn, and frustrated wail towards the heavens, that the events uncontrollably led to this state. The son, Mark, has made peace with his parents and has a successful rock band called Eels. I wish him well.
In this book, Peter Byrne has tried to cover three issues:
1. A unique elucidation of Quantum Mechanics called Many Worlds Interpretation, attributed to Hugh Everett III
2. Hugh Everett’s post-PhD career that had nothing to do with quantum mechanics, but with operations research which tried to rationalize cold war with Russia, and of destruction by warfare (even if it had the potential for Mutual Assured Destruction—MAD), so that the best can survive.
3. Hugh Everett’s personal life, and his immediate family of wife, son, and daughter.
I was most interested in the first issue, partly the third, and least in his life as a weapons analyzer, and focused accordingly while reading the book. Here is a review.
Even to this day, there are two main axioms in quantum theory:
1. The dynamics of subatomic particles (for that matter, even up to molecules) are defined and governed by Schrodinger’s equations which define a continuous wave function as a superposition of all possible states in which a (subatomic) particle can exist.
2. When such a particle interacts with an observer, or when a measurement is made as to its position or any such property, the wave function suddenly and mysteriously collapses into one of the states. The state to which the reduction happens can only be estimated probabilistically (using Born postulate) as the square of the modulus of the wave function that was governing the particle till now. Determinism of how the world operates is lost.
It is thought that quantum mechanics governs the physics of the micro size, and general relativity, of the macro world, but really, the demarcation—defined by axiom 2—exists because physicists do not know how to combine the two.
To introduce the quantum mechanics theory as simply as possible, consider the Schrodinger’s cat paradox. In a closed box is a cat along with a tiny bit of radioactive material which decays and emits an alpha particle. The way these radioactive particles decay is probabilistic. In other words, within a timespan that is considerably less than the half-life of the material, we cannot deterministically say that a decay has happened. For example, radon-222 has a half-life of 3.82 days. Within the first two days of the experiment, we cannot say for sure that the radon has decayed into the decay products polonium and alpha particle. The released alpha particle, if the decay does happen, is detected by a Geiger counter which, upon detecting, releases a hammer which cracks open a vial of poison that kills the cat.
Now the radioactive material, being micro, subatomic particles, are governed by Schrodinger’s wave equations (postulate 1) as per which it can exist in a superposition of decayed as well as not-decayed state. Only when it is observed—or a measurement is made—do we know whether it is decayed or not. Therefore, until we open the box, and an observation is made, the vial is also in a superposition of cracked and not cracked and the cat is also in superposition state of being dead and alive at the same time! This is a well-known paradox in quantum mechanics which is still unsolved and exemplifies the problem of marrying the differing views at the quantum and macro levels.
According to the second postulate, when the box is opened and an observation is made (i.e., a measurement is made), immediately the wave function (which, remember, is in a superposition of multiple states) collapses probabilistically into one of the states—either the radioactive material has decayed or not, which leads to a cracked vial or an intact one. Correspondingly, the cat is either dead or alive, and we confirm the state: cat is dead, so we weep; or the cat is not dead, so we rejoice! This interpretation is called the Copenhagen interpretation and is due to Niels Bohr. Although scientists have been using it all along and it has worked, IT IS ONLY A POSTULATE, AN AXIOM, and there is no logical or rational reasoning. In addition, mathematically it is abhorrent because of the discontinuity in the smooth wave function, with a sudden sharp change—magically—to one of the superposed states! Even though this interpretation is accepted for all practical purposes, physicists despise it for those reasons of mysticism and magic. Furthermore, this step change seems to be the root cause why quantum mechanics and gravitation (which is a classical, continuous theory) do not mix well. Therefore, to have a single, unified quantum gravitational theory that can explain the behavior of all sized particles—micro as well as macro—this postulate must be dropped. Fewer the axioms, better the theory is.
Hugh Everett did exactly that. He let the wave function run its course continuously and proposed that when a decoherence of a particle that is existing in a superposed state of multiple states into one of the states happens—i.e., an observation or measurement happens—the world splits into multiple worlds! In each of the newly spawned worlds, the particle goes into one of the states of the superposed states. In case of the Schrodinger’s cat, there are two world that are spawned from the original: in one world, the radioactive substance has not decayed, the vial is not broken, and the cat is alive, and in the other world, the poison has been released and the cat is dead. The human observer (and the rest of the world) gets copied into each of the two new worlds. Therefore, if, upon opening the box, we see the cat is dead, then it means we happen to be in the split world wherein the cat is dead (and the other split world would have the live cat). If we find the cat is alive, that means we happen to be in that world where the cat is alive, and there exists another split world where the cat is dead! According to this Theory of Universal Wave Function (as Everett referred to it as), the universal wave function represents a superposition of everything that is physically possible, and as this wave function propagates beyond observation and measurement, every possibility that can potentially exist, exists in some world. In that sense, Many Worlds interpretation is a deterministic theory which would probably have appealed to Einstein. From Everett’s universal wave function, the Born rule to evaluate the probability of which state the observer (prior to splitting) will end up with can be derived. Everett claims to have derived the Born rule of probability (instead of postulating it) by which each of the superposed states are formed, starting from the superposed universal wave function. However, this derivation has not been proved beyond doubt and is a bone of contention.
The multiple worlds are inaccessible to each other, ever. This conclusion is based on information theoretic explanation of Many Worlds Interpretation. When a superposed wave function Ψ=Ψ_1+Ψ_2 splits into two worlds, Ψ_1 and Ψ_2, each of these new worlds have lost information about the other, i.e., Ψ_1 about Ψ_2 and vice versa and hence cannot access each other.
Peter Byrne has done a good job explaining the details of the Many Worlds Interpretation, along with the history. It would help to have some knowledge of basic quantum mechanics. If you are familiar with Young’s double slit experiment, you can get something from the book.
After the Many Worlds Interpretation theory was proposed—which directly opposed Niels Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation—it was not received well. Everett’s own doctoral advisor, John Wheeler, was a big shot in physics, specializing in both quantum mechanics and general relativity. So, this theory was the right tool for him to combine quantum mechanics and gravity, to come up with quantum gravity. However, he was a fan of Bohr (a bad thing to be, as a scientist) and did not want to offend him! Though he worked very hard to convince Bohr that Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation theory encompasses Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation as a special case—it is valid in our own world—Bohr and his followers did not accept it. In the end, after Everett got his PhD (in 1957), Wheeler recanted and stopped supporting Everett, much against his liking. I wish Wheeler had stood by Everett even if the theory might be proved wrong. (As of now, it has not yet been.) He made Everett cut down his thesis from 137 pages to 36! He also had the word “split” removed from the thesis, though Everett snuck one occurrence surreptitiously. The complete 137-page thesis (which has three occurrences of “split,” but his notes have many) was published by Princeton University fifteen years later, in 1973. Today, there are quite a few quantum gravity physicists who support Many Worlds Interpretation, and their number is growing.
That much about Many Worlds Interpretation. After his PhD, Everett went to work for the US defense system, developing algorithms to analyze nuclear attacks from Russia, during the cold war. There too he contributed greatly to game theory, developing the theory of generalized Lagrange multipliers for systems with too many variables which even vary based on dynamic feedback.
Everett’s personal life was quite a mess. He was a very non-typical father, husband, and a man. Both he and his wife led a swinging lifestyle and did not pay enough attention to their kids—a boy, Mark Everett, and a girl, Liz. Extremely intelligent, but unfortunately, he was also an alcoholic, a chain smoker, and a womanizer. He died quite young—at fifty-two—of a massive heart attack, and when the then nineteen-year-old Mark tried to lift him up, he realized that this was the first time he had even touched his father! His daughter was wont to partying, running from one man to another for sex and attention, became a drug addict, depressed, and messed up her life and finally committed suicide, leaving behind a note that she wished her ashes to be thrown out with the garbage (just like how the atheist Hugh Everett wanted, with his) so that she might "end up in the correct parallel universe to meet up with Daddy.” Very sad meltdown of a family. Heart wrenching every time I think of them and reminds me of the doctor’s monologue in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, “God, God, forgive us all!”—a helpless, forlorn, and frustrated wail towards the heavens, that the events uncontrollably led to this state. The son, Mark, has made peace with his parents and has a successful rock band called Eels. I wish him well.
October 10, 2023
I would give this book 6 stars if I could. Why didn’t I know about it before? It’s an amazing book, granted for a pretty limited audience. Peter Byrne does a magnificent job of capturing a unique history and telling it engagingly, along the way covering some very complex technical subjects at an amazingly well laid out conceptual level.
Hugh Everett was a quantum physicist, game theorist, and mathematician. He was a core figure in what was happening in quantum physics and, separately, in war strategy from the 1950s on through the 1970s, until his death in 1982 at the age of just 51. Yet not very many people know much if anything about him. He packed a lot into his short life.
Let’s start with physics. As controversial a figure as he became (and may still be), it’s probably the safest of the grounds on which he built his life. Naturally, he didn’t stay there long.
Everett was a brilliant student in mathematics and physics at Princeton. John Wheeler, the famous physicist of gravitational theory, black holes, and most everything else, was Everett’s mentor.
Much of the book plays out an unstable triangle between Everett, Wheeler, and Wheeler’s own mentor and the most powerful figure in quantum theory at the time, Niels Bohr.
Famously, quantum theory describes a micro universe of particles in which the attributes of those particles are inherently indeterminate. Rather than fixed positions (and other properties), particles subsist as described in Schrödinger’s wave equation as occupying a range of potential position values (a “superposition”).
Those values are interpreted as probabilities — probabilities that, for each value, if the particle's position is measured, that value will be obtained. When the measurement actually takes place, all those potential values “collapse” into a single determinate one.
But until the measurement takes place, the particle itself is in the “superposition” state. It isn’t just our inability to determine the particle’s position that makes it indeterminate — rather the particle’s own inherent position is indeterminate until the moment it is measured and the probabilities collapse into a single value.
Why the probabilities collapse, and why a “measurement” causes or occasions it in some way is hard or impossible to explain.
I’m already headed into details, but I’ll just say that the standard (Copenhagen/Bohr) interpretation of quantum physics requires a separation between observer and the target of observation in order to make sense of that collapse (referred to as the “wave collapse”). The particle is treated as a particle in a quantum world, subject to indeterminacy, while the observer is treated as part of a classical world, with no such indeterminacy.
Otherwise, as we’ll see in Everett’s interpretation, quantum indeterminacy infects the observer as well.
Everett’s insight, expressed in his doctoral dissertation, was to make no such separation, to treat the observer as a quantum phenomenon himself/herself. Thus, the wave function in Everett’s interpretation becomes not a description of an isolated particle’s behavior, but a description of an entire universe of inter-related quantum elements.
When the “measurement” happens, i.e., when the value of the particle’s attributes is determined, rather than a “wave collapse,” for Everett, we get a “branching”. All of the potential values of the particle’s attributes are realized, but in different realities, with branched observers coupled with those values.
Because the observer is also part of that same quantum system, along with the particle, Everett’s interpretation branches the actual observer into multiples, each continuing on in a separate, parallel universe coupled to the measured value in that universe.
That’s a lot to swallow.
And of course not everybody, particularly Niels Bohr, wanted to swallow it. Its great virtue was that it rid quantum physics of that seemingly ad hoc division between the observer and the observed, a division that led to all sorts of metaphysical speculations about the special roles of consciousness and the causal effects of conscious observation and measurement in a quantum universe.
It rid quantum physics of the mystery of the wave collapse. But it gave us multiple, make that effectively infinite, universes, populated by innumerable versions of its observers, ourselves.
Everett’s theory was initially championed to Bohr by Wheeler, as Everett’s dissertation advisor. Wheeler acted as a kind of facilitator for a relationship between Everett and Bohr that never really happened. Bohr, and his followers, rejected Everett’s theory with prejudice, mixed maybe with a bit of insult. Everett actually visited Bohr in Copenhagen, ostensibly to hash out differences between the theories, but Bohr’s attitude seemed to be to insist that Everett had solved a non-problem, that there was nothing wrong with the “measurement paradox.”
At this point, Everett left academic physics, even with Wheeler’s encouragement to take an academic position and continue his research.
Despite that decision, Everett kept his ear to the quantum physics world, continuing to monitor ongoing reactions and mentions of his work. He occasionally even participated in discussions, but always as a kind of guest visitor.
I’ll skip ahead in the story to say that Everett’s work lay relatively dormant for decades, with few (but some) researchers stimulated and inspired by it to work out its details and consequences.
But over the last few decades, the “Everettian” interpretation has gone mainstream. It, or aspects of it, survive and prosper in mainstream quantum physics today, either in the “Many Worlds” theory largely worked out by Everett himself, or in theories derived from it (e.g., “Decoherence”). Max Tegmark, one of its most prominent advocates, refers to it as on a par with the greatest and most important theoretical work of the twentieth century, alongside such work as relativity theory.
Meanwhile, like I said, Everett had left academic physics. Where was he?
Of course! He was at the Pentagon. He was working as mathematical lead for the private nuclear strategy think tank and defense contractor, the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group (WSEG). These are the people who brought us war games at the professional, and potentially real, level.
Everett was particularly critical in mathematically modeling first strikes, retaliations, fallout radii, casualties, . . . — all the things that need to be understood before adoption of a nuclear strategy. These were the days in which the strategy of “mutual assured destruction” emerged.
Everett’s contributions included not just mathematical frameworks but software programming breakthroughs (especially breakthroughs enabling reductions of complex calculations), and strategic conclusions. On the latter, Everett was a major contributor to the realization that first strikes could not adequately disable the enemy (the Soviet Union) so as to prevent a devastating retaliatory attack. First strike was demonstrably suicide.
Everett’s participation in WSEG led to successor businesses and offshoots, also enabled by government contracts, although not all directly defense-related.
Everett was not a great businessman. I’ll let Peter Byrne tell all those stories. Everett often chased ahead of financial collapses, not always getting out into the clear but doing well enough to support himself and his family.
But now the family (I promise this is the last part, and I’ll make it quick).
Everett married and raised two children. He was not a successful family man. He was an alcoholic, chain-smoking philanderer. Oddly, though, likeable and even adored by his wife and children.
Inspired by the Kinsey Reports on sexuality, Everett enjoyed wife-swapping and less formal hound dogging. His wife Nancy was long-suffering, but at least in my reading, a sympathetic figure — she had her own interests as a writer, and she found outlets for self-expression within the family model of the time.
Everett was an emotionally distant father. His son Mark has said that the only time he can remember actual physical contact with his father was when he discovered his father lying on a bed after a heart attack, and lifted him from the bed. His father was dead and stiff.
Mark survived his upbringing and is around today, having helped Peter Byrne with conversations and with access to Everett’s papers, stored in Mark’s basement. Mark turned his dysfunctional family life into art, providing grist for his songwriting with his successful indie rock band, EELS.
Mark’s older sister, Liz, didn’t survive as long as Mark. After a very troubled life of addictions and misfortunes of all sorts, she died of a suicidal drug overdose in 1996, 14 years after her father died. She left a note saying that she was joining her father in a parallel universe.
Okay, that’s a long review. I know I went on and on, but that’s because this is such a great story told by Peter Byrne. The history of the Wheeler-Bohr-Everett would-be triangle would have been a great book by itself. But then the bigger context of personal life and Everett’s “second career” in war planning — that all takes it above and beyond.
Hugh Everett was a quantum physicist, game theorist, and mathematician. He was a core figure in what was happening in quantum physics and, separately, in war strategy from the 1950s on through the 1970s, until his death in 1982 at the age of just 51. Yet not very many people know much if anything about him. He packed a lot into his short life.
Let’s start with physics. As controversial a figure as he became (and may still be), it’s probably the safest of the grounds on which he built his life. Naturally, he didn’t stay there long.
Everett was a brilliant student in mathematics and physics at Princeton. John Wheeler, the famous physicist of gravitational theory, black holes, and most everything else, was Everett’s mentor.
Much of the book plays out an unstable triangle between Everett, Wheeler, and Wheeler’s own mentor and the most powerful figure in quantum theory at the time, Niels Bohr.
Famously, quantum theory describes a micro universe of particles in which the attributes of those particles are inherently indeterminate. Rather than fixed positions (and other properties), particles subsist as described in Schrödinger’s wave equation as occupying a range of potential position values (a “superposition”).
Those values are interpreted as probabilities — probabilities that, for each value, if the particle's position is measured, that value will be obtained. When the measurement actually takes place, all those potential values “collapse” into a single determinate one.
But until the measurement takes place, the particle itself is in the “superposition” state. It isn’t just our inability to determine the particle’s position that makes it indeterminate — rather the particle’s own inherent position is indeterminate until the moment it is measured and the probabilities collapse into a single value.
Why the probabilities collapse, and why a “measurement” causes or occasions it in some way is hard or impossible to explain.
I’m already headed into details, but I’ll just say that the standard (Copenhagen/Bohr) interpretation of quantum physics requires a separation between observer and the target of observation in order to make sense of that collapse (referred to as the “wave collapse”). The particle is treated as a particle in a quantum world, subject to indeterminacy, while the observer is treated as part of a classical world, with no such indeterminacy.
Otherwise, as we’ll see in Everett’s interpretation, quantum indeterminacy infects the observer as well.
Everett’s insight, expressed in his doctoral dissertation, was to make no such separation, to treat the observer as a quantum phenomenon himself/herself. Thus, the wave function in Everett’s interpretation becomes not a description of an isolated particle’s behavior, but a description of an entire universe of inter-related quantum elements.
When the “measurement” happens, i.e., when the value of the particle’s attributes is determined, rather than a “wave collapse,” for Everett, we get a “branching”. All of the potential values of the particle’s attributes are realized, but in different realities, with branched observers coupled with those values.
Because the observer is also part of that same quantum system, along with the particle, Everett’s interpretation branches the actual observer into multiples, each continuing on in a separate, parallel universe coupled to the measured value in that universe.
That’s a lot to swallow.
And of course not everybody, particularly Niels Bohr, wanted to swallow it. Its great virtue was that it rid quantum physics of that seemingly ad hoc division between the observer and the observed, a division that led to all sorts of metaphysical speculations about the special roles of consciousness and the causal effects of conscious observation and measurement in a quantum universe.
It rid quantum physics of the mystery of the wave collapse. But it gave us multiple, make that effectively infinite, universes, populated by innumerable versions of its observers, ourselves.
Everett’s theory was initially championed to Bohr by Wheeler, as Everett’s dissertation advisor. Wheeler acted as a kind of facilitator for a relationship between Everett and Bohr that never really happened. Bohr, and his followers, rejected Everett’s theory with prejudice, mixed maybe with a bit of insult. Everett actually visited Bohr in Copenhagen, ostensibly to hash out differences between the theories, but Bohr’s attitude seemed to be to insist that Everett had solved a non-problem, that there was nothing wrong with the “measurement paradox.”
At this point, Everett left academic physics, even with Wheeler’s encouragement to take an academic position and continue his research.
Despite that decision, Everett kept his ear to the quantum physics world, continuing to monitor ongoing reactions and mentions of his work. He occasionally even participated in discussions, but always as a kind of guest visitor.
I’ll skip ahead in the story to say that Everett’s work lay relatively dormant for decades, with few (but some) researchers stimulated and inspired by it to work out its details and consequences.
But over the last few decades, the “Everettian” interpretation has gone mainstream. It, or aspects of it, survive and prosper in mainstream quantum physics today, either in the “Many Worlds” theory largely worked out by Everett himself, or in theories derived from it (e.g., “Decoherence”). Max Tegmark, one of its most prominent advocates, refers to it as on a par with the greatest and most important theoretical work of the twentieth century, alongside such work as relativity theory.
Meanwhile, like I said, Everett had left academic physics. Where was he?
Of course! He was at the Pentagon. He was working as mathematical lead for the private nuclear strategy think tank and defense contractor, the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group (WSEG). These are the people who brought us war games at the professional, and potentially real, level.
Everett was particularly critical in mathematically modeling first strikes, retaliations, fallout radii, casualties, . . . — all the things that need to be understood before adoption of a nuclear strategy. These were the days in which the strategy of “mutual assured destruction” emerged.
Everett’s contributions included not just mathematical frameworks but software programming breakthroughs (especially breakthroughs enabling reductions of complex calculations), and strategic conclusions. On the latter, Everett was a major contributor to the realization that first strikes could not adequately disable the enemy (the Soviet Union) so as to prevent a devastating retaliatory attack. First strike was demonstrably suicide.
Everett’s participation in WSEG led to successor businesses and offshoots, also enabled by government contracts, although not all directly defense-related.
Everett was not a great businessman. I’ll let Peter Byrne tell all those stories. Everett often chased ahead of financial collapses, not always getting out into the clear but doing well enough to support himself and his family.
But now the family (I promise this is the last part, and I’ll make it quick).
Everett married and raised two children. He was not a successful family man. He was an alcoholic, chain-smoking philanderer. Oddly, though, likeable and even adored by his wife and children.
Inspired by the Kinsey Reports on sexuality, Everett enjoyed wife-swapping and less formal hound dogging. His wife Nancy was long-suffering, but at least in my reading, a sympathetic figure — she had her own interests as a writer, and she found outlets for self-expression within the family model of the time.
Everett was an emotionally distant father. His son Mark has said that the only time he can remember actual physical contact with his father was when he discovered his father lying on a bed after a heart attack, and lifted him from the bed. His father was dead and stiff.
Mark survived his upbringing and is around today, having helped Peter Byrne with conversations and with access to Everett’s papers, stored in Mark’s basement. Mark turned his dysfunctional family life into art, providing grist for his songwriting with his successful indie rock band, EELS.
Mark’s older sister, Liz, didn’t survive as long as Mark. After a very troubled life of addictions and misfortunes of all sorts, she died of a suicidal drug overdose in 1996, 14 years after her father died. She left a note saying that she was joining her father in a parallel universe.
Okay, that’s a long review. I know I went on and on, but that’s because this is such a great story told by Peter Byrne. The history of the Wheeler-Bohr-Everett would-be triangle would have been a great book by itself. But then the bigger context of personal life and Everett’s “second career” in war planning — that all takes it above and beyond.
June 15, 2023
It all gets back to the wave function: 𝚿 the thing that Mark Everett, son of the subject of this book, so aptly called a pitchfork. For unlike the Law of Gravity or Theory of Relativity, the exact implications of the wave function have not clarified reality for scientists, but deepened the confusion and mystery.
In brief (and in laymen’s terms) the wave function is the mathematical description of the quantum state of a particle. For us, at the macroscopic level—where the old rules still hold—things either are or aren’t. You either step through that door or you don’t. Subatomic particles seem to perversely exist in a both/and potential state (superposition). They only submit to the are/aren’t (step through the door/don’t step through the door) principle of big things after they’re observed, in an experiment.
But wait, does that mean that our observation of things makes it so? Not exactly, and the very idea that this might be true is what makes physicists so reticent to share their ideas with laymen. Someone like me will just shrug and say “Weird,” while a New Age hustler will use the idea of the observer’s role in such an equation as proof that “you make your own reality” or can will yourself into being slim or rich, or whatever. After all, if the very subatomic fabric of the universe must obey your whims whenever you glance at it, what can’t you do?
It isn’t necessary, though, to resort to New Age mysticism to recognize how magic this science is. Especially not when you consider the ultimate implications of superposition. For if subatomic particles obey these rules, and we are ultimately composed of these, do we not also ultimately exist in a superposition of states? Do I not both go through that door and not go through the door?
The most famous and well-established theory (postulated and cultivated by a group of scientists orbiting the Danish physicist Niels Bohr) argues that no, you do not do both. Once you make your choice (or your observation) the wave function collapses into a single path.
Most of the scientific community was comfortable with this formula, both literally with its math (which I can’t begin to understand) and with its undergirding implications. After all, as weird as all these little particles were, at least we as human beings have some agency, some choice, in what happens, right? Right?
Hugh Everett the Third, a singular and brilliant physicist and computer scientist, says “No.” You do in fact go through both doors, but you go through them along different vectors in a geometrically incomprehensible and perhaps infinite multiverse.
Everett cultivated his theory as a young, energetic man, a precocious genius who began his correspondence with the eminence` grise Albert Einstein at the age of 12 (!) He was socially inept (as many geniuses are) but seemed to mean no real harm when he came to the task of trying to solve the seeming paradoxes at the heart of Bohr’s theory, chief among them, the observer paradox. For if the whole universe is part of the wave function, how can it even be observed? Aren’t even you, the seeming observer, part of the experiment (or wave propagation) rather than its witness?
In a weird way (and in an analogy Everett the atheist would have hated) he was a bit like Martin Luther. He tried to reform an existing church, which so recoiled at his admonitions that he was forced to start his own. Only Everett, unlike Luther, collected very few followers in his lifetime.
And because his theory basically put a cigarette out on the Bohr/Copenhagen theory, Everett’s ideas were shunned. His PhD thesis was shelved in some brick dungeon at Princeton, and he was academically and socially isolated, treated as a pariah for his physical lèse majesté. A bowdlerized version of his thesis eventually did appear in print, but it was so butchered (to avoid mangling frail sensibilities) that it was gutted of its essence, and ultimately its central argument.
Everett was devastated, but was careful to never let on to family, friends, or colleagues how much it hurt for him and his ideas to be rejected. Instead, he buried himself in lucrative contract work, assisting various alphabet bureaucracies in planning to both wage and prevent nuclear war. He came up with formulae, computer programs, and theories of brinksmanship and probability that are still used today.
He also, unfortunately, partied as hard as he worked. He drank excessively, ate rich foods, and consequently packed on the booze bloat while doing his heart no favors. He ignored his wife and philandered with pretty much every woman who came into his orbit (including employees and colleagues, when he could convince them to reciprocate.)
His son and daughter were strangers to him, and when one committed suicide he seemed more perplexed than crestfallen. He rarely if ever spoke publicly about his theory after his defenestration at Denmark, as it was too painful. He did, at least, however, live long enough to see his theory not only come into vogue, but to become, in some ways, the dominant one.
We may ultimately never know who was right or more right between Bohr and Everett, and there are even physicists who claim their worldviews are not incompatible but complementary. Then again, it is entirely possible that some experiment with the supercollider at CERN (or some aliens) could prove one or the other man ultimately right, and “all will be revealed” tomorrow.
Regardless, this is a beautiful, tragic, and strangely romantic tale about a pragmatic and sometimes cold man who dedicated his life to solving a great mystery. It’s very, very hard in such bios to balance the technical detail and professional achievements on the one hand, against the personal life of the subject on the other. Author Peter Byrne does a stellar job, mostly because he was willing to do the crazy spadework involved with literally digging up boxes from the basement in the Everett house. He was also diligent enough to track down and personally interview any of the still-living principals who were there when the Cage Match in Copenhagen went down.
Thank God, I suppose, that scientists usually lead such long lives. Alas, Everett wasn’t one of those. Highest recommendation, with photos.
In brief (and in laymen’s terms) the wave function is the mathematical description of the quantum state of a particle. For us, at the macroscopic level—where the old rules still hold—things either are or aren’t. You either step through that door or you don’t. Subatomic particles seem to perversely exist in a both/and potential state (superposition). They only submit to the are/aren’t (step through the door/don’t step through the door) principle of big things after they’re observed, in an experiment.
But wait, does that mean that our observation of things makes it so? Not exactly, and the very idea that this might be true is what makes physicists so reticent to share their ideas with laymen. Someone like me will just shrug and say “Weird,” while a New Age hustler will use the idea of the observer’s role in such an equation as proof that “you make your own reality” or can will yourself into being slim or rich, or whatever. After all, if the very subatomic fabric of the universe must obey your whims whenever you glance at it, what can’t you do?
It isn’t necessary, though, to resort to New Age mysticism to recognize how magic this science is. Especially not when you consider the ultimate implications of superposition. For if subatomic particles obey these rules, and we are ultimately composed of these, do we not also ultimately exist in a superposition of states? Do I not both go through that door and not go through the door?
The most famous and well-established theory (postulated and cultivated by a group of scientists orbiting the Danish physicist Niels Bohr) argues that no, you do not do both. Once you make your choice (or your observation) the wave function collapses into a single path.
Most of the scientific community was comfortable with this formula, both literally with its math (which I can’t begin to understand) and with its undergirding implications. After all, as weird as all these little particles were, at least we as human beings have some agency, some choice, in what happens, right? Right?
Hugh Everett the Third, a singular and brilliant physicist and computer scientist, says “No.” You do in fact go through both doors, but you go through them along different vectors in a geometrically incomprehensible and perhaps infinite multiverse.
Everett cultivated his theory as a young, energetic man, a precocious genius who began his correspondence with the eminence` grise Albert Einstein at the age of 12 (!) He was socially inept (as many geniuses are) but seemed to mean no real harm when he came to the task of trying to solve the seeming paradoxes at the heart of Bohr’s theory, chief among them, the observer paradox. For if the whole universe is part of the wave function, how can it even be observed? Aren’t even you, the seeming observer, part of the experiment (or wave propagation) rather than its witness?
In a weird way (and in an analogy Everett the atheist would have hated) he was a bit like Martin Luther. He tried to reform an existing church, which so recoiled at his admonitions that he was forced to start his own. Only Everett, unlike Luther, collected very few followers in his lifetime.
And because his theory basically put a cigarette out on the Bohr/Copenhagen theory, Everett’s ideas were shunned. His PhD thesis was shelved in some brick dungeon at Princeton, and he was academically and socially isolated, treated as a pariah for his physical lèse majesté. A bowdlerized version of his thesis eventually did appear in print, but it was so butchered (to avoid mangling frail sensibilities) that it was gutted of its essence, and ultimately its central argument.
Everett was devastated, but was careful to never let on to family, friends, or colleagues how much it hurt for him and his ideas to be rejected. Instead, he buried himself in lucrative contract work, assisting various alphabet bureaucracies in planning to both wage and prevent nuclear war. He came up with formulae, computer programs, and theories of brinksmanship and probability that are still used today.
He also, unfortunately, partied as hard as he worked. He drank excessively, ate rich foods, and consequently packed on the booze bloat while doing his heart no favors. He ignored his wife and philandered with pretty much every woman who came into his orbit (including employees and colleagues, when he could convince them to reciprocate.)
His son and daughter were strangers to him, and when one committed suicide he seemed more perplexed than crestfallen. He rarely if ever spoke publicly about his theory after his defenestration at Denmark, as it was too painful. He did, at least, however, live long enough to see his theory not only come into vogue, but to become, in some ways, the dominant one.
We may ultimately never know who was right or more right between Bohr and Everett, and there are even physicists who claim their worldviews are not incompatible but complementary. Then again, it is entirely possible that some experiment with the supercollider at CERN (or some aliens) could prove one or the other man ultimately right, and “all will be revealed” tomorrow.
Regardless, this is a beautiful, tragic, and strangely romantic tale about a pragmatic and sometimes cold man who dedicated his life to solving a great mystery. It’s very, very hard in such bios to balance the technical detail and professional achievements on the one hand, against the personal life of the subject on the other. Author Peter Byrne does a stellar job, mostly because he was willing to do the crazy spadework involved with literally digging up boxes from the basement in the Everett house. He was also diligent enough to track down and personally interview any of the still-living principals who were there when the Cage Match in Copenhagen went down.
Thank God, I suppose, that scientists usually lead such long lives. Alas, Everett wasn’t one of those. Highest recommendation, with photos.
May 27, 2021
The poetry book I am currently working on is a thought experiment of sorts based on the many worlds theory, which made this biography of Hugh Everett III a must-read. Byrne courageously delves into the ramifications of Everett's highly complex contribution to quantum physics as well as his Cold War biography. Be forewarned: this theory could challenge the way you currently experience reality... Perhaps what surprised me most was that Everett III would choose to lead his life like an aging character out of Mad Men with a military-industrial complex, despite having attempted to reconfigure the Weltanschauung of humanity, no less, by challenging the foundations of the so-called "classical" world. Indeed, it is often surprising to note how often the biographies of great thinkers are circumscribed by the more unfortunate trends or values of their time.
January 9, 2022
I stumbled upon this book while reading about the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, in particular of the wave function collapse. Hugh Everett was the original author of the many-worlds interpretation, so the book promised to be a good read. Unfortunately, there is not a single formula in the book and no excerpts or so from Everett's PhD thesis (where he introduced the many-worlds interpretation). The meta-discussion of his ideas, at least to me, doesn't really do the job of getting to understand the physics behind this interpretation. On the upside, the book is a marvelous peace of writing when it comes down to U.S. considerations during the cold war, the strategies and tactics of the armed forces and the defense contractors of that era and certain societal norms typical for Everett-like people of that era.
September 23, 2020
I am grateful to the author for his ability to write about this topic without parroting the people who are educated about this topic but are unable to explain the concepts to a layperson. Byrne succeeds where many others would fail in his ability to explain the concepts and problems and not leaving his reader in confusion. I needed to read this book for other research and I am glad I did.
May 16, 2021
A fantastic biography by one of the 20th century’s most brave thinkers. Very well researched, the book provides valuable context and historical parallels which adds to the reading experience.
I just wish Hugh Everett III would have stayed in academia and improved upon his theory..
I just wish Hugh Everett III would have stayed in academia and improved upon his theory..
July 8, 2018
Currently on my second reading. History will be kind to Hugh Everett's quantum interpretation and it started with this book.
November 30, 2021
A very detailed book on the life and work of the father of the 'many worlds' interpretation of the Quantum Mechanics.
What a tragic genius.
Really well written book.
What a tragic genius.
Really well written book.
February 13, 2023
I have read this book a few times. It is the story of Hugh Everett III who is the pioneer of the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum mechanics. The main competitor against the status quo Copenhagen interpretation elbowing its way against Bohmian Mechanics (Pilot wave Theory), QBism (Quantum Bayesianism) a statistical epistemological interpretation, and GRW spontaneous collapse models among a host of interpretations. My predilection is the Everett Many Worlds Interpretation but right now it is a choice of metaphysical, epistemology, or aesthetic preference. This book covers the life of Hugh Everett and his interpretation.
Everett was a boy wonder who was drummed out of academic track because of his work on his odd interpretation of QM. He wound up in the pentagon planning nuclear war gaming with a Q-level security clearance for his nuclear work. While working away in the pentagon he figured out in the 1970s that a nuclear war was more catastrophic than initially thought and put together the research behind the idea of mutually assured destruction which mostly was policy in the latter part of the cold war. He was a heavy smoker and drinker and it killed him at age 53 in 1983. His estranged son Eric found him dead on his master bed. it is a sad story of a nuclear family that also disintegrated shortly after with his wife and daughter following Hugh shortly out of this universe. His son the only remain survivor and lead singer to the band the Eels. A fascinating story of a family about even contemporaries with my parents and my family. So the story has some resonance.
Everett was a boy wonder who was drummed out of academic track because of his work on his odd interpretation of QM. He wound up in the pentagon planning nuclear war gaming with a Q-level security clearance for his nuclear work. While working away in the pentagon he figured out in the 1970s that a nuclear war was more catastrophic than initially thought and put together the research behind the idea of mutually assured destruction which mostly was policy in the latter part of the cold war. He was a heavy smoker and drinker and it killed him at age 53 in 1983. His estranged son Eric found him dead on his master bed. it is a sad story of a nuclear family that also disintegrated shortly after with his wife and daughter following Hugh shortly out of this universe. His son the only remain survivor and lead singer to the band the Eels. A fascinating story of a family about even contemporaries with my parents and my family. So the story has some resonance.
March 20, 2024
Very nice biography of a brilliant physicist - and a flawed man. The "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics (basically taking the Schroedinger equation at face value, including the observer as part of the "measurement" as opposed to the observer "doing" the measuring from without) continues to gain more favorability within the physics community. Still lots of controversy and competition from other interpretations, but fascinating nonetheless. (Listen to/read/watch Sean Carroll of Johns Hopkins to gain further perspective from an advocate of this interpretation). I was unaware of Everett's contributions to game theory, information theory, "mutual assured destruction" policies of the Cold War etc. Family life was a mess. As an aside (or perhaps more precisely, directly related), I love the music of his son Mark Everett known as "E" and his indie rock band "Eels". (Creative, expressive music, well-recorded and with the lyrics of many of his songs speaking to the difficulties of growing up in the Everett family).
July 23, 2023
If you have heard about the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics and you are curious about the man who first came up with it, this is the book for you. That's basically my whole review. But I have to add a strong caveat. From an editing/publishing point of view, this book is of shockingly poor quality. As I read, I kept turning the book over to check that I had really seen the imprint of Oxford University Press on the cover. (And don't even get me started on the cover design.) There is some sort of copyediting error on almost every page, including some scientist's winning a "Noble Prize" and at least two instances of "it's" being used as a possessive. Curious about one cited work, I looked for it in the references list, but it was not there. In an academic book, such a quantity of textual errors makes one worry that *substantive* errors have been made that the reader will never notice. OUP really dropped the ball on this one.
September 19, 2024
Hugh Everett famously invented the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, as an alternative to the mainstream "Copenhagen Interpretation".
After doing that, and finding opposition to the idea, the brilliant Everett basically changed careers and use his brain for all kinds of Cold War analysis, of the the Dr Strangelove kind. While doing so he became rich, overweight alcoholic yet womanizer, with little concern for his wife and children.
A sad story really. The book is interesting, the author's politicizing a bit less so. Don't feel I understand the science completely... will need another book for that.
After doing that, and finding opposition to the idea, the brilliant Everett basically changed careers and use his brain for all kinds of Cold War analysis, of the the Dr Strangelove kind. While doing so he became rich, overweight alcoholic yet womanizer, with little concern for his wife and children.
A sad story really. The book is interesting, the author's politicizing a bit less so. Don't feel I understand the science completely... will need another book for that.
October 7, 2013
La biografia di uno dei più grandi geni della seconda metà del '900 ignorato dal grande pubblico.
Il libro è molto buono, soprattutto perché riesce a tenere sotto controllo i tanti fili della narrazione (scientifica, storica, psicologica, familiare ecc.) che si snodano attorno e dentro la vita di Hugh Everett III.
Buono anche come introduzione per non addetti ai lavori della interpretazione a "molti mondi" della meccanica quantistica.
Il libro è molto buono, soprattutto perché riesce a tenere sotto controllo i tanti fili della narrazione (scientifica, storica, psicologica, familiare ecc.) che si snodano attorno e dentro la vita di Hugh Everett III.
Buono anche come introduzione per non addetti ai lavori della interpretazione a "molti mondi" della meccanica quantistica.
Read
August 3, 2011See my review in the latest issue (Vol. 5, No. 2) of The Quantum Times.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews