What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics by Adam Becker

Jul 09, 2018 Manny rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: Sociologists, philosophers, physicists, Ursula Le Guin fans

Shelves: history-and-biography, strongly-recommended, received-free-copy, science, linguistics-and-philosophy, well-i-think-its-funny

What is real?

This ought to be a question of burning interest to almost everyone, and yet, for some reason, hardly anybody over the age of seventeen seems to take it seriously. If you ask the adults, no one's sure whose responsibility it is. They send you over to talk to the sociologists, who shrug their shoulders; sorry guv, nuffin to do wiv us. Try philosophy, they're just down the street. The philosophers look embarrassed, and explain that yes, absolutely, they used to be in charge of it, but What is real?

This ought to be a question of burning interest to almost everyone, and yet, for some reason, hardly anybody over the age of seventeen seems to take it seriously. If you ask the adults, no one's sure whose responsibility it is. They send you over to talk to the sociologists, who shrug their shoulders; sorry guv, nuffin to do wiv us. Try philosophy, they're just down the street. The philosophers look embarrassed, and explain that yes, absolutely, they used to be in charge of it, but now it's been handed over to physics. The physicists tell you that of course they know the answer: there is no such thing as reality. If you aren't happy with that, go and talk with the sociologists. And round you go again. This book, I am pleased to say, does take the question seriously. Rather than limiting himself to one single viewpoint, which as we've seen lets it get away, Adam Becker pursues all three lines of investigation simultaneously, and manages to present something which looks surprisingly like an answer. It's a complicated answer, and you need a three hundred page book to explain it properly, but I would summarise it like this.

About a hundred years ago, a group of physicists made some astonishing discoveries. This work, which soon started going by the name of "quantum mechanics", had enormous philosophical implications: in comparison, the Copernican revolution was no more than a minor footnote. It showed that the nature of reality was completely different from what had previously been believed. It was also, unfortunately, rather difficult to understand, and could only be explained well in mathematical language. Even worse, it turned out to be a source of incredible military and economic power: it made possible the development of weapons and technologies that had previously not even been dreamed of.

Power, as is well known, corrupts, and this new power corrupted at every level. In particular, it corrupted intellectually. Physicists, who in the 1920s had been familiar with philosophy and well-disposed towards philosophical ways of thinking, became arrogant and impatient with the philosophers. What were they doing, sitting around dreaming about eternal verities, when physicists had important work to do? The physicists decided they could take care of the philosophy themselves. They cobbled together some theories from the currently fashionable positivist school and breathed a sigh of relief. We don't need to worry about what "reality" is; there is no such thing as "reality", and the mere fact that you ask the question shows you are an ignorant layman. We have a picture of what happens in quantum mechanics which we call the "Copenhagen interpretation", and it's the only possible answer. We have mathematically proved it.

A few people whispered that the proof seemed to have a hole in it and the Copenhagen interpretation didn't actually make sense, but they were ignored. Who cared what these crazy dissidents thought, when physics departments were being showered with money by people who wanted more magical devices? The math worked: it didn't matter what it "meant". In a phrase which came to encapsulate this whole world-view, shut up and calculate. The philosophers, who should have been keeping an eye on things under the academic world's informal separation-of-powers system, had lost all confidence. They no longer had any power. When they tried to object, they were slapped down by the physicists: no one cares what you say, when you don't understand the complex math on which quantum mechanics is based. Physicists who did understand the math and still had a philosophical outlook were contained in other ways. If they tried to publish work, it was usually rejected as "not real physics". If they persisted, they were labelled as unemployable, and refused promotion or worse.

It's an absolutely fascinating chapter in the development of human thought, and Adam Becker, who's done a huge amount of background research, explains it very well. He starts off with a quote from Ursula Le Guin, and if you're a fan of The Dispossessed you'll soon recognise the story: this is Shevek, but not as a fictional character. Read it and find out what's really been going on. ...more

flag 160 likes · Like · see review

May 27, 2018 Manuel Antão rated it it was amazing

Shelves: favorites, 2018

If you're into stuff like this, you can read the full review.

Quantum Ontology: The Universal-Wave-Function vs. The Pilot-Schrödinger-Wave-Function vs. the Collapsing-Schrödinger-Wave-function as a Stab at Explaining Reality.

The diversity of possible comments on this book reflects ironically the Everett paradigm of quantum ontology. There are as many views of reality as there are observers. Thankfully in all instances, given the depth of some of the possible interpretations, the interaction of th ...more

flag 72 likes · Like · see review

Jun 06, 2019 David Katzman rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

A truly fantastic, lucid overview of the competing theories that purport to explain quantum mechanics. Becker takes an interesting approach that I’ve never read before, which is to put all the different theories into historical context. We learn a great deal about both the philosophical context and personalities that surrounded, supported and challenged the competing theories. What is at stake here is our understanding of the very nature of reality.

Although I’ve read a great deal about quantum t A truly fantastic, lucid overview of the competing theories that purport to explain quantum mechanics. Becker takes an interesting approach that I’ve never read before, which is to put all the different theories into historical context. We learn a great deal about both the philosophical context and personalities that surrounded, supported and challenged the competing theories. What is at stake here is our understanding of the very nature of reality.

Although I’ve read a great deal about quantum theory, this book was an eye-opener. There are currently three leading theories to explain the Schrodinger Equation and what it says about the nature of the universe. The Copenhagen Interpretation, which was the first explanation and the most widely known, the de Broglie–Bohm Pilot Wave Theory, and the Many-Worlds Interpretation. There are several others out there as well, but these are the leading three at present and the ones that Becker spends the majority of his book explaining. There is a fourth, for example, that proposes the random collapse of the wave function, but it is not very popular at the moment. It seems a bit gimmicky to me, but it can’t be dismissed on that basis.

Becker demonstrates that although Copenhagen is still the most widely accepted by physicists, it has tremendous gaping holes of logic in it that fail to justify its popularity. Becker educates us thoroughly on how it came to be so popular despite the weakness of it. Much of it has to do with the cult of personality around key physicists who promoted it when it first came out—along with various political events, cultural and philosophical currents that complemented this theory. Since then, the challenges of understanding quantum mechanics have kept a kind of inertia among physicists, which creates reluctance for them to consider new theories. Einstein didn’t trust the Copenhagen interpretation and invented thought experiments that challenged it. The story goes that Niels Bohr overcame and dismissed Einstein’s objections and “won” the debate. But as Becker presents it, in fact, Bohr was a confusing, muddled communicator and a slow thinker who never actually understood Einstein’s thought experiments and only rejected them rhetorically not through actual logical debate. In the end, much of the defense of Copenhagen was simply assertion.

Einstein had two primary objections to the Copenhagen interpretation. The first was non-locality or what he called “spooky action at a distance.” He said there was no reason to trust that particles can instantaneously move from one location to another or instantaneously communicate over vast distances as is required by the Copenhagen Interpretation. He also objected to the mushy undefined nature of how an observation causes the collapse of the Schrodinger Wave function. Do events not occur in deep space if they aren’t being observed? And if not, then how do the processes continue on in time until they are observed? (For example, imagine an unobserved sun exploding far from any life forms. I million years later it collapses into a white dwarf star. Imagine no observer has “seen” the sun for the first million years but then a space-ship whizzes nearby and sees the white dwarf star. Did the sun not exist for the first million years of its explosion but then instantaneously leaps into white dwarf star state as if it had been observed in the past million years? You can see the absurdity of this. It would have to instantaneously assume a state and also instantaneously assume one million years of past history.) Does observation require consciousness to read a piece of data? Or does a mouse collapse the wave function? The theory can’t answer that question. There is also another big hole in the Copenhagen Interpretation, which is that it must posit a distinction between the quantum world and the “classic” world. Right now the theory proposes that “classical” objects—those that obey Newtonian physics—are just…bigger. And “small” objects obey quantum effects. An observation must be enacted by a “big” object that is classical in order to collapse the wave function. But Copenhagen can’t explain why bigger objects aren’t subject to quantum effects and where the boundary is between big and small. Nothing in the Schrodinger Equation itself ever signals that a collapse should occur. As far as the Schrodinger Equation knows, particles will continue in their undefinable states forever. Measurement is invented as an outside justification for finding particles somewhere rather than everywhere at once.

Copenhagen seems bankrupt to me. Too many holes are unexplained by it…it is clearly incomplete. The Pilot-Wave Theory plugs a few of the holes although it still suffers from non-locality, but in fewer cases than Copenhagen does. In general, Pilot-Wave theory solves the issue of the particle/wave duality. Particles ride on waves essentially so their behavior is not nearly as mysterious as it is in Copenhagen. Pilot Wave Theory does a great job of explaining the mysterious double-slit experiment, for example. Particles have definite locations within an atom, but we just can’t see them. They aren’t mysteriously smeared everywhere at the same time; they are moving along, following their pilot wave, and are simply found where they are found when measured. An observer isn’t required per se, so it solves the measurement problem. But it still requires non-locality in some situations. Some physicists still believe Einstein was wrong and the world may not be local. Particles may make faster-than-light instantaneous changes. Since Pilot-Wave theory is equivalent to the Schrodinger Equation mathematically, it is worth considering.

The Many-Worlds Interpretation has become much more recognized in recent years in popular culture as well as physics circles, but there still remains a lot of resistance to it as a theory because it requires you to adopt a very, very, very strange view of reality. Really, the Copenhagen explanation is also very, very strange, but because it maintains a certain mystery “we can never know,” it perhaps leaves some of that strangeness disguised.

On the plus side, the Many-Worlds Interpretation does in fact eliminate non-locality as an issue. Particles do not in fact ever instantly assume positions or change positions instantly nor do they communicate with their pasts to assume some certain state. Many Worlds also solves the observer issue. No observation is required. It also explains the related measurement issue. Similarly, no measurement is required to collapse the Schrodinger Equation. Nor is there any need to distinguish between classical or “big” objects and “small” or quantum objects. Everything is subject to quantum effects all the time. When a quantum particle interacts with another larger object, such as a “measurement device” they become entangled and unite into a larger and more complex Schrodinger Equation. There is no collapse, only constant entanglement.

It’s weirder than that though. In fact, it proposes that every single quantum state that has ever existed breaks off into a separate universe. The entire universe is an infinite multiplicity of universes that are all united as one giant quantum Schrodinger Equation. Every single state spins off as a new universe. Now that is supremely weird. But mathematically, it is also equivalent to the Copenhagen Interpretation and produces the same results. There are some challenges with the meaning of probability however, so it’s not a fully solved model for the universe. But it certainly answers many questions that Copenhagen doesn’t. And it also cures non-locality, which Einstein believed was impossible.

All that said, Becker points out that it is quite possible that a new interpretation could arise that would supersede all these as well, but he encourages the scientific pursuit of the meaning of the Schrodinger Equation and demonstrates why there is so much value in pursuing these mysteries.

What a great book. Recommended for anyone who enjoys cutting edge physics and written in a fashion that seems comprehensible to the layperson. ...more

flag 43 likes · Like · see review

Apr 24, 2019 Max rated it it was amazing

Shelves: physics

Becker explores the interpretation of quantum mechanics. He and the scientists he cites all accept the functionality, accuracy and mathematics of quantum mechanics, but disagree on what it tells us about the world. Does it merely provide information useful in making predictions for experiments and designing new technology or does it reveal an underlying reality. Becker digs into Niels Bohr’s Copenhagen Interpretation. He discusses alternatives such as David Bohm’s pilot-wave interpretation, Hugh Becker explores the interpretation of quantum mechanics. He and the scientists he cites all accept the functionality, accuracy and mathematics of quantum mechanics, but disagree on what it tells us about the world. Does it merely provide information useful in making predictions for experiments and designing new technology or does it reveal an underlying reality. Becker digs into Niels Bohr’s Copenhagen Interpretation. He discusses alternatives such as David Bohm’s pilot-wave interpretation, Hugh Everett’s many-worlds interpretation, the spontaneous-collapse theory and decoherence. Becker gives us a brief history of the development of quantum mechanics and its interpretations beginning with Bohr and Einstein and their life long debate over the meaning of quantum mechanics. Particularly interesting was material about the development of alternative interpretations and how difficult it was for young physicists to challenge accepted beliefs. Becker, who has studied both physics and philosophy, makes the case for the important role of philosophy in interpreting what all the experiments and weird results tell us about the real world.

Becker reviews the double-slit experiment and well known thought experiments such as Schrodinger’s cat-in-box experiment. He uses these to illustrate his issues with the Copenhagen interpretation. Foremost is the Measurement Problem. In quantum mechanics fundamental particles are represented by a wave function which gives the probability of their being found in a particular location. However the Copenhagen interpretation holds that when we measure the particle the wave function collapses and only then do we find the particle in one specific place. This collapse is not supported by Schrodinger’s equation which is the math establishing the wave function of quantum mechanics. But it is a widely accepted postulate of many scientists who believe in the Copenhagen Interpretation. What constitutes a measurement is not clear. Is it when the particle is observed? Observed by who or what? Is it when the particle encounters a larger object?

Another important issue is that of a boundary between the quantum world and the everyday world. Bohr, the acknowledged father of the Copenhagen Interpretation, held that there was a separation between the quantum world where particles could be found almost anywhere until measured and the normal macro world we see every day. Where is that dividing line? How can the particles that are the building blocks for macro objects like us behave so differently and still create the world we observe? Recent experiments reveal quantum behavior in larger objects. One experiment coaxed a sixty carbon atom “buckyball” into a quantum state where it demonstrated interference with itself just like a photon in the double-slit experiment. More physicists today accept that quantum waves apply to macro objects further complicating the issues of measurement induced wave collapse and boundaries.

In 1952 David Bohm building on the work of Louis of de Broglie proposed a theory of pilot waves guiding particles. Both the waves and particles are always there even when no one is looking. The particle “surfs” the wave which determines its position. No need of an observer for the particle to materialize. A couple of years later Hugh Everett III determined that the “Copenhagen Interpretation is hopelessly incomplete…excluding in principle any deduction of classical physics from quantum theory, or any adequate investigation of the measuring process…as well as a philosophic monstrosity with a ‘reality’ concept for the macroscopic world and denial of the same for the microcosm.” He proposed that the wave function never collapsed. It simply split with each outcome continuing on and splitting again ad infinitum. Everett didn’t discuss many worlds in his “relative-state” theory. Bryce DeWitt in a 1957 Physics Today article dubbed it the many-worlds theory stoking the imagination leading to its popularization. Modern concepts in cosmology such as inflation and string theory invoked the multiverse making Everett’s many-worlds seem less strange and by the 21st century it was second in popularity among physicists to the Copenhagen interpretation.

Bohm, Everett and others who proposed solutions that encompassed a quantum reality were derided by the physics establishment. Their work was not deemed worthy of consideration by serious scientists even though Bohm and Everett were brilliant physicists. As the century wore on more physicists became receptive to alternative interpretations. Becker recounts the frustrations of many young physicists interested in the foundations of quantum mechanics who were actively discouraged or ostracized for questioning an accepted successful theory. One inspiration was the work of John Bell. Bell started his investigation of quantum mechanics after reading Bohm. In a 1964 paper Bell put forth a convincing argument that nature was nonlocal, a feature of Bohm’s pilot wave interpretation that had been heavily criticized by the Copenhagen adherents. Nonlocality means that entangled photons share a single wave function thus they synchronize their quantum states instantaneously at any distance violating special relativity. Subsequent experiments have supported Bell’s theorem which has been referred to as “the most profound discovery of science.” However, if the wave function splits into multiple branching worlds as Hugh Everett III proposed, locality would be maintained.

The Copenhagen Interpretation holds that quantum mechanics provides useful information, but does not reveal any underlying reality. Until the wave function collapses there is only a mathematical probability of the location of a particle. The particle is nowhere. It only appears when a measurement is made. While this became the widely accepted view, some respected physicists did not buy in. These included Einstein and Schrodinger in the 1920s and 50 years later Nobel Prize winner Murray Gell-Mann. Gell-Mann wrote “The fact that an adequate philosophical presentation [of quantum physics] has been so long delayed is no doubt caused by the fact that Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of theorists.” Bohr was a charismatic figure with great influence over other top physicists. His complete disdain of alternative interpretations became conventional wisdom stifling any young physicist interested in being taken seriously from pursuing alternatives. The rise of cosmology in the last half of the twentieth century helped create support for those who didn’t accept Bohr’s views. Gell-Mann and James Hartle noted “Measurements and observers cannot be fundamental notions in a theory that seeks to discuss the early universe when neither existed.”

Bohr’s views were likely influenced by the trending philosophy in Weimar Germany. Logical Positivism developed by the “Vienna Circle” built on the work of physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. The positivists believed that anything not observable was meaningless. Applied to the quantum this means imputing the existence of particles prior to observation is meaningless. Mach was Wolfgang Pauli’s godfather. Pauli, a preeminent physicist born and raised in Vienna, was an influential supporter of positivism and Bohr. Bohr stated flatly “There is no quantum world.” “Isolated material particles are abstractions…” This begs the question where do particles come from when an observation is made. Reacting to such views Einstein noted “What I dislike in this kind of argumentation is the basic positivistic attitude which seems to me to come to the same thing as [Irish philosopher George] Berkeley’s principle, esse est percipi [to be is to be perceived].” Einstein believed there was a real quantum world that existed when not observed. He believed quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory.

One may ask why different interpretations of the same mathematics matter. Regardless of interpretation the math delivers the same results. Schrodinger’s equation still applies whether interpreted as Copenhagen or many-worlds. Becker offers a good example. In the sixteenth century Tycho Brahe proposed that the sun and moon rotated around the earth and the other planets around the sun. Copernicus had earth rotating around the sun too. At the time both models gave the same predictions of the planets motions. So why care which was right? Obviously only the Copernicus model led to a better understanding and more fruitful research.

The disparity in interpretation reflects that between physicists and philosophers. One hundred years ago scientific curricula included course work in philosophy. Einstein studied Mach and Bohr studied Kant. Few physicists today get training in philosophy changing their approach to interpretation. Many scientists associate philosophy with Continental philosophers who are suspicious of scientific claims. However, Becker points out that philosophers of physics use an analytic approach that accepts science and applies logical rigor to the interpretation of its results. Becker with training in both concludes “Stating that the conclusions of the Copenhagen interpretation are ‘inevitable’ or ‘forced upon us by the mathematics of the theory’ is simply wrong. It is not true that it’s meaningless to talk about reality existing independently of perceptions, that we must think of the world solely as the subject of our observations. Solipsism and idealism are not the message of quantum physics.” “There is something real out in the world, that somehow resembles the quantum. We just don’t know what that means yet. And it’s the job of physics to find out.”
...more

flag 38 likes · Like · see review

Jun 06, 2018 Radiantflux rated it it was amazing

Shelves: physics-mathematics

59th book for 2018.

A very interesting and accessible book on quantum ontology.

With no math (!) Becker takes the reader effortlessly through nearly a hundred years of back-and-forth debate as what quantum mechanics implies about the universe we live in.

The history itself is fascinating. I had no idea (blush) that Heisenberg (of uncertainty fame) was actually a Nazi who headed the Nazi's atomic bomb project, which according to Heisenberg (postwar) was unsuccessful as he was really a nice guy who 59th book for 2018.

A very interesting and accessible book on quantum ontology.

With no math (!) Becker takes the reader effortlessly through nearly a hundred years of back-and-forth debate as what quantum mechanics implies about the universe we live in.

The history itself is fascinating. I had no idea (blush) that Heisenberg (of uncertainty fame) was actually a Nazi who headed the Nazi's atomic bomb project, which according to Heisenberg (postwar) was unsuccessful as he was really a nice guy who didn't want to blow up things, and according to Becker was incompetent. According to Becker, Heisenberg was actually the one who coined the "Copenhagen Agreement" in the postwar period as a way of cementing his role in the foundation of QMs and upgrading his status post-Hitler, and by doing so made it seem there was a standard interpretation when there wasn't.

Einstein (who I had been raised to think of as just never getting QM) comes across as particularly sharp in his critique, and was concerned about the implications of non-locality that he saw lurking at the heart of the standard interpretation of QM; which is of course at the heart of Bell's inequality theorem. QM's grandfather Bohr comes as a bit of an arsehole, stopping any dissent into his standard positivist interpretation of QM. His waving away of the measurement problem, of there being two worlds (a QM world of the small, and a classical world of the big), can be seen in retrospect as incoherent and vastly damaging to the field.

(If I understood things correctly) Einstein's major concern with the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM was that not only were a particle's properties (momentum, energy etc) unknown until the collapse of QM wave function, they in didn't exist according to the Copenhagen Interpretation until that point. Einstein saw that this led to two possibilities: either QM was incomplete and these properties existed but were unmeasurable (i.e., there were "hidden variables - God doesn't play dice!) or the nature of the properties was fixed at the time of measurement (i.e., the Copenhagen Interpretation). If the latter, this would in turn imply that in certain situations (i.e., where particles were quantumly entangled) information about these properties would be transmitted instantaneously (i.e., faster than the speed of light and locality would fail). Naturally Einstein preferred the situation where QM was incomplete and locality was upheld.

David Bohm, later derived a model of QM that was completely consistent with the maths of the Copenhagen Interpretation, but did involve hidden non-local variables (i.e., at any particular moment a particle has a definite momentum, energy, spin etc). As a bonus this Bohmian interpretation gave simple explanations of classic problems like the double-slit experiment, as well as QM entanglement, but perhaps because it involved non-locality (or because it contradicted the Copenhagen Interpretation) was largely dismissed and forgotten.

Hugh Everett, looking for a quick doctoral topic, decided to avoid the measurement problem altogether by supposing the wave function never collapsed, and thereby developed what has become known as the Many Worlds interpretation of QM. Naturally his work was also ignored by the physics establishment at the time, and he had to radically reedit his thesis in order to pass.

Later John Bell (a particle physicist at CERN, who by his own account worked on QM foundations on Sundays) developed a theoretical test to see if local hidden variables could exist within QM. His paper, published in an obscure journal, was eventually tested years later at Berkeley for the first time in the early 1970s, and showed that non-locality was upheld (i.e., there were no local hidden variables - God does play with dice!). What this means for the World is hard to get your head around, and I join my better Einstein in thinking this is a very weird result indeed. It is shocking to learn that the postdoc who did these brilliant experiments, was unable to get tenure afterwards, because this work was regarded as quasi-worthless by the general physics community in the 1970s.

In an irony of fate, this very non-locality is the very basis for modern quantum computing.

Strongly recommended.

5-stars. ...more

flag 27 likes · Like · see review

May 04, 2019 Matt rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: teachers-teach, too-small-and-too-big, might-tell-you-the-truth, philosophy-thought-language-logic

Gee-whiz! What is real? How the Heisenberg should I know?

This book left me more in doubt about our (my?) reality than before I read it but I guess that’s a good thing.

When you hear the words Quantum Theory and you only have a vague notion about some cat in a box, that’s neither dead nor alive (or perhaps both at the same time?) but want to learn more, this is the book for you. Although QT usually involves some rather complicated and evolved maths, this text gets by completely without it. Instea Gee-whiz! What is real? How the Heisenberg should I know?

This book left me more in doubt about our (my?) reality than before I read it but I guess that’s a good thing.

When you hear the words Quantum Theory and you only have a vague notion about some cat in a box, that’s neither dead nor alive (or perhaps both at the same time?) but want to learn more, this is the book for you. Although QT usually involves some rather complicated and evolved maths, this text gets by completely without it. Instead you’ll get a coherent picture about the history, philosophy, and, naturally, the science around QT from the early stages to current time. Although the equations and formulas of QT obviously can predict events and qualities of the universe with astonishing precision, even after more than ninety years there is still no conclusive/unique interpretation of those formulas, which means we still don’t know “the inmost force which binds the world, and guides its course”. I find this rather weird, and, honestly, a bit unsettling. So much of our current technology depends on results of Quantum research, but we don’t even know exactly how and why it works!?

The acting characters in this story, mostly physicists, are introduced to the reader through biographical notes, anecdotes, quotations and so on: Bohr and Born (there’s also another called Bohm, and it’s hard to tell those three apart), Einstein, of course, and Schrödinger (the cat guy), Heisenberg (the uncertainty guy). Those I heard about before. But I only had a vague picture of Everett and his many-world-interpretation as well as Bell and his theorem. All of these and many others are introduced in detail and it’s a pleasure to read about them, about their struggles in search of reality (or refusal to do so). Given the fact that some of the people were German and Jewish and a great part of the story is set around the Nazi reign and WWII gives the book an additional historic flavor that I quite liked.

The concluding chapter wraps up with some intriguing discussion about what science in general could mean for us, how it should work, and why it matters. We are all born scientists, explorers of the world we perceive around us, until it’s educated out of us. Get some of it back and read this book, why don’t you?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. ...more

flag 23 likes · Like · see review

Dec 19, 2018 Mario the lone bookwolf rated it it was amazing

Shelves: 0-natural-sciences

Interdisciplinarity between scientists, philosophers and neuroscientists will eventually crack the well-deciphered code of reality.

Please note that I have put the original German text to the end of this review. Just if you might be interested.

The game of knowledge acquisition has always been played back and forth between three groups. The philosophers, scientists and, more recently, the neuroscientists. Philosophers can design the inspirational ideas for the other two groups in the field and mak ...more

flag 22 likes · Like · see review

Nov 09, 2018 Charlene rated it it was amazing

Shelves: general-science, biography, history, chaos-complexity-emergence, favorites, physics

If this book were a meal, it would be bursting with such flavor that you could not help going back for seconds. Indeed I read it a second time and chose to listen to Sean Carroll's Mysteries of Modern Physics lectures, from The Great Courses series, as the accompanying glass of wine and dessert because it reenforced the ideas presented in Becker's book. Listening to Sean Carroll's lecture series along with reading this book allowed me to think about how all of the discoveries made in the quantum If this book were a meal, it would be bursting with such flavor that you could not help going back for seconds. Indeed I read it a second time and chose to listen to Sean Carroll's Mysteries of Modern Physics lectures, from The Great Courses series, as the accompanying glass of wine and dessert because it reenforced the ideas presented in Becker's book. Listening to Sean Carroll's lecture series along with reading this book allowed me to think about how all of the discoveries made in the quantum world apply to time. I warn you though, it's a rabbit hole. Since there are no final answers yet, your brain might get caught in an obsessive trap. I have now moved on to re-reading Lisa Ranall's Warped passages, not because I am convinced of other dimensions, but because thinking about pocket dimensions and/or bubble universes seemed extremely important to me after reading Becker and Carroll together. I also can't seem to stop thinking about how all of this relates to gravity, and keep rereading sections of Gravity's Engines by Caleb Scharf. Sometimes I feel so sad when I realize I will die before someone can answer the burning questions in my mind about the way the universe works, but nothing feels better than thinking about what we do know.

While mainly focusing on the measurement problem in quantum physics (does the wave function collapse) , Becker recounts the history of many of the major discoveries and provided an extremely intuitive account of the following aspects of quantum mechanics:

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
Double slit
Schrödinger's cat
Everett's many worlds
Copenhagen Interpretation (probability / wave function collapse)
The Bohr - Einstein debates
EPR paradox

Becker included in depth and intensely refreshing biographies of John Bell and his inequality and David Bohm's unorthodox ideas. The biography of Bohm was particularly of interest to me because not too long ago I finished a series of books about the discovery of quantum theory and while many of those books covered the other people highlighted in this book, none of them covered Bohm in the manner Becker did.

I really cannot recommend this book highly enough. Rating a book like this always makes me realize how my previous 5 star ratings muddy the waters. I want there to be a 6 star rating you could use once or twice a year, so that you can really set a book apart from others. This book would be worthy of that 6 star rating. ...more

flag 20 likes · Like · see review

Mar 27, 2018 Ramin rated it really liked it

Here's a brief excerpt of my review of "What is Real?" for Nature magazine, which was just published today. Please check out the full review here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d4158...

All hell broke loose in physics some 90 years ago. Quantum theory emerged — partly in heated clashes between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. It posed a challenge to the very nature of science, and arguably continues to do so, by severely straining the relationship between theory and the nature of reality. Adam B ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

May 31, 2020 Lea rated it it was amazing

Shelves: 2020, read-in-english, history, non-fiction, philosophy, science, physics

One of the best science books I've ever read and just what I was looking for after I fell down the wikipedia quantum physics rabbit hole last week and was intrigued and confused as hell - I had half an existentialist crisis because I suddenly started doubting determinism.

Adam Becker gives both a historical run-down of how the theory of Quantum Physics came to be, and an explanation of the different interpretations thereof. I tend to think of physics as a "hard science" and this was such an eye- ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Oct 21, 2018 David rated it it was amazing

This reads like an edge-of-the-seat detective story about quantum physics. I never thought this subject was particularly friendly to being portrayed with this kind of drama. Most reading on sub-atomic physics is a kind of slog; a perfunctory sweat-labor with the objective of obtaining a walking around knowledge of the subject.

This book sets out the characters and the stakes involved with great narrative momentum. The assumptions behind the phenomenally successful equations of quantum physics (k ...more

flag 10 likes · Like · see review

Mar 31, 2020 Jonathan rated it it was amazing

Shelves: non-fiction

Without doubt one of the best popular science books I have ever read. Well written, fascinating and a genuine page-turner. Highly recommended

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Mar 20, 2020 Sato rated it it was amazing

What a delightful adventure! I really appreciate what Adam Becker has done, probably not only because of his incredible book, but also because I belong to the minority who think the Copenhagen Interpretation is not satisfying and “Shut up and Calculate” doesn’t add up.

Quantum physics is tremendously successful and although it is considered the physics of ultra-small but there is really no boundary to its incredible contribution to the present progress in life.

Niels Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli and ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Apr 13, 2018 Ed Erwin rated it it was amazing

Shelves: nonfiction, science, history

QM is undeniably non-intuitive and weird, but the Copenhagen Interpretation(s) are far more weird than necessary, and have been used to sell a lot of quack-pot ideas. There are other interpretations, which are still weird, but much less so. The other interpretations don't require crazy claims about conscious observers affecting the behavior of electrons or cats that are alive and dead at the same time and so forth.

This book has ZERO equations and very few diagrams. You do not need to be a math w QM is undeniably non-intuitive and weird, but the Copenhagen Interpretation(s) are far more weird than necessary, and have been used to sell a lot of quack-pot ideas. There are other interpretations, which are still weird, but much less so. The other interpretations don't require crazy claims about conscious observers affecting the behavior of electrons or cats that are alive and dead at the same time and so forth.

This book has ZERO equations and very few diagrams. You do not need to be a math whiz to understand it. It still might make your brain hurt, but it is mostly stories about people and history.

This book explains, briefly, what some of these other interpretations are, and why they aren't as well known.
* Firstly, the Copenhagen Interpretation works fine for practical purposes. As long as you can accept some hand-waving arguments about what situations cause "wave function collapse" you can just go about your business and solve practical equations and you will get the right answer.
* University physics courses today are all about solving practical problems. Physics students aren't expected to worry about philosophical underpinnings, and professors don't have time to try to teach it anyway.
* David Bohm had trouble spreading his ideas largely because the FBI or CIA got him run out of the country and stuck in Brazil due to the red scare. He was unable to attend conferences or visit other physicists.
* Hugh Everett left the world of Physics for personal reasons, so didn't publicize his ideas much.
* Niels Bohr had close personal relationships with many physicists, and they tended to accept his interpretations over those of Einstein or others, even when Bohr's writings are so confusing that nobody knows what they mean.
* Respectable physics journals refused to publish articles about interpretation issues.

Adam Becker is trained in both physics and philosophy and that gives him the tools he needs to tell this story. He even managed to convince me that philosophy is not totally useless (though I still think some of it is.)

I would give this book 6 stars if it could tell me which interpretation of QM is correct. Unfortunately nobody can do that yet. But at least people are actively studying the problem again.

My favorite part is probably the appendix where he works through an experiment and shows how it is interpreted in the Copenhagen interpretation as well as three other interpretations. In CI, it appears like magic is happening. In all others, it is still weird, but much less so. ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Oct 26, 2019 Peter Tillman rated it liked it

Shelves: at-bg-pa, on-reserve, sci-tech, did-not-finish, friend-recos

This is a pretty good science-history account of the birth and progress of quantum physics in the early to mid 2oth century. It's not riveting reading, but I learned a fair amount about some of the scientists working in the field, and the zeitgeist in Europe then. Especially memorable was the mid-1930s, when Hitler came to power and promptly fired all the Jewish scientists in German (and later, other) universities. What a foolish move on his part, and what a bonanza of scientific talent for Amer This is a pretty good science-history account of the birth and progress of quantum physics in the early to mid 2oth century. It's not riveting reading, but I learned a fair amount about some of the scientists working in the field, and the zeitgeist in Europe then. Especially memorable was the mid-1930s, when Hitler came to power and promptly fired all the Jewish scientists in German (and later, other) universities. What a foolish move on his part, and what a bonanza of scientific talent for America and the West! (And far worse was to come . . .) Max Planck tried to reason with the new Chancellor, telling him how much damage he would do to German science. Hitler practically foamed at the mouth, and snapped "Then we shall have to do without science for a few years!" How fortunate for the (soon to be) Allies that Hitler was no better as a Commander in Chief. Though he did ample damage before his defeat. . . But I digress.

Particularly interesting was the account of the career of Niels Bohr, who mumbled at seminars and wrote scientific papers so rambling and opaque that no one else seemed to really understand him. Yet he remained an icon of 20th century physics. And he was capable of great kindness, as when he told Enrico Fermi that he was certain to get the Nobel prize (and US$ 1 million) in the near future. Fermi and family were more than ready to move out of Fascist Italy, as Hitler's anti-Jew campaign was being pressed there too. Fermi asked for the Prize that year (1938), took his family to Stockholm for the ceremony, and never looked back. When Fermi arrived in the US, he immediately began work on nuclear fission, and helped build the world's first nuclear reactor. He became a key scientist for the Manhattan Project, and has been called the "architect of the nuclear age." Other scientists at Los Alamos were in awe of his quick thinking and scientific abilities. Good thing the Nazis and Fascists ran him off, eh?

I'd read more of the book, but it's already overdue, and I have so many others lined up on the shelf, competing for my attention. An enviable position, to be sure. It's a good time to be a reader! I'm about halfway in, and while I could return someday . . . 🕰 ∲ ⏰ ⦼ ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Mar 27, 2018 Ari rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: casual-nonfiction

Quantum mechanics is one of the most solid, well-tested parts of physics. Everybody (at least, everybody relevant to this book) agrees how to use quantum mechanics to do things like predict the behavior of semiconductors and molecular bonds. But not everybody agrees on what the theory "means" -- what sorts of things exist in the universe and so forth.

This is not a tightly focused book. Instead of stating a claim and then proving it, the reader is treated to a loosely chronological discussion of Quantum mechanics is one of the most solid, well-tested parts of physics. Everybody (at least, everybody relevant to this book) agrees how to use quantum mechanics to do things like predict the behavior of semiconductors and molecular bonds. But not everybody agrees on what the theory "means" -- what sorts of things exist in the universe and so forth.

This is not a tightly focused book. Instead of stating a claim and then proving it, the reader is treated to a loosely chronological discussion of the history of interpretation of quantum mechanics, with long biographical, philosophical, and technical asides. A knowledgeable reader may find themselves skimming a lot. While the book lacks academic crispness, it does have a full machinery of notes and references, and an academic reader shouldn't have any trouble putting it in the context of the relevant professional literature.

The book has a few controversial claims at its core: Becker argues that the "Copenhagen interpretation" is a mishmash of slogans that lack coherence, and that cannot even be applied without some tacit notion of what qualifies as a measurement. Becker reconstructs the Bohr-Einstein debates and shows that Bohr largely missed the point Einstein was making: Bohr managed to vindicate the uncertainty principle, but Einstein was bothered by nonlocality, not uncertainty. It happens that the universe really is non-local, as Bell showed, but that is strange and alarming and should be acknowledged squarely and not hidden in talk of waveness or particle-ness.

I should summarize the problem that interpretations of quantum mechanics address.

In quantum mechanics, there's a rule that describes how a system evolves, called the wave equation. The {Schroedinger, Dirac} wave function is deterministic, continuous, and it assigns a certain amplitude to every point in space: it says "there is this much electron at this point," where the amount of electron is a complex number. There is also a rule (the Born Rule) that says that if you do a measurement, the chance of finding a particle at a given point is squared amplitude of the wave function at that point. The Born Rule is probabilistic and discontinuous. A big part of the problem of interpreting quantum mechanics is to explain how those pieces fit together.

Most physics books will tell you that "the standard interpretation is the Copenhagen Interpretation, worked out by Bohr et al, and it goes like this..." As Becker shows, however, there isn't any real agreement about what the Copenhagen interpretation actually says. There is a whole set of claims that get lumped together under that label -- and these claims are distinct and sometimes incompatible. There is a Copenhageny mood or style, not a clear interpretation. Bohr personally was both very charismatic, widely respected, and highly obscure. This made it easy for different people to offer distinct views while sincerely or otherwise ascribing them to Bohr.

All those confusing and quasi-mystical explanations -- "particles are sometimes waves and sometimes particles but you can't see both at once", "wave functions collapse after measurement", etc are all Copenhagen-ish tropes. Bohr talked that way and was avowedly mystical about it. And "consciousness causes collapse" was floated by ultra-respectable hard-headed physicist and Nobellist Eugene Wigner; even von Neumann might have inclined to that view.

Disclaimer: Adam is a classmate and friend of mine -- I'm in the acknowledgements -- I went into this book highly sympathetic to his view. I am not a physicist, but have done considerable reading and coursework related to the physics, philosophy, and history in this book; I'm not quite an expert but was already aware of most of the facts. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Feb 07, 2019 Erik rated it really liked it

Shelves: detailed-review, non-fiction

In his book Superintelligence, philosopher Nick Bostrom tells a story about an evolutionary algorithm tasked with designing an efficient oscillator. After running through many generations, it eventually presented a “solution” with a strange absence: it had no power source!

At first, the engineers declared the design a failure. Upon closer examination, however, they discovered the algorithm had reconfigured its circuit board into a makeshift radio receiver to pick up oscillating signals from nearb ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Jul 14, 2018 Seth Benzell rated it liked it

I am ambivalent about this book.

On the one hand, I nearly put the book down a few chapters in. The early material about the initial development of quantum theory was all old news to me, covered (better) in books like ``Thirty Years Which Shook Physics." The actual mechanics of quantum theory are not covered in depth. The only part of this book I felt was novel was the details of how central Bohr was to how QM is thought about.

The book's novelty for me starts about halfway in, after WWII. The di I am ambivalent about this book.

On the one hand, I nearly put the book down a few chapters in. The early material about the initial development of quantum theory was all old news to me, covered (better) in books like ``Thirty Years Which Shook Physics." The actual mechanics of quantum theory are not covered in depth. The only part of this book I felt was novel was the details of how central Bohr was to how QM is thought about.

The book's novelty for me starts about halfway in, after WWII. The discussion of how alternatives to the Copenhagen Interpretation arose and were suppressed is compelling and provocative. The discussion of why the 'Measurement Problem' is indeed a problem is very well articulated.

The social science in the background-- which posits that government funding (which favored 'shut up and calculate' pragmatism), path dependence, Bohr's network centrality -- are all interesting hypotheses that point to both the 'incommensurablity' of different paradigms as well as the role of the political and social in the development of science. I wish the author had speculated on how lessons we learn from this history might help us to do better science in the future.

The book also has very good, if perhaps too extreme, takedowns of logical positivism and verificationism. I agree that they are inadequate (logical positivism is on its face an oxymoron, and 'the decisive experiment'-- as pointed out by 'Two Dogmas'-- can always be dodged by the modification of ancillary hypotheses), but do think they have something to say. One difference between science and non-science is testable prediction (if not the only difference), if not the only one. The example used in the book -- of heliocentrism being observationally equivalent to ptolemyic astronomy -- was only true temporarily. Foundations of Physics, then, might be thought of as proto- or pre- science, until it is able to generate predictions different from Copenhagen.

As an alternative to LP and verificationism, the author proposes a very vague demarcation principle -- one so broad (i.e. science 'tries to integrate distinct knowledges into a unified theory') that I think astrology or theology fit snugly. His more practical demarcation, that e.g. religious groups 'aren't really interested in scientific truth' is inadequate philosophically, because as he points out normal science is often motivated by things outside real science. The author just seems to assume Scientific Realism as true (claiming that this is the consensus of philosophers of science, and painting all continental philosophers' opinions as being prima facie not relevant for some reason; dissing Kuhn for not being sufficiently realist). This is a position I lean towards as well, but needs to be actually argued against a idealist stance (although I think he does well arguing against the instrumentalist stance -- does that term appear? -- in his takedown of positivism).

Finally the book's actually descriptions of quantum riddles -- such as Bell's Thm -- were adequate but still left me with lots of questions. His first appendix -- explaining the 'delayed choice' experiment through 4 different QM interpretations -- also left me looking for clarification. I would also have appreciated more discussion of actual attempts to test different interpretations -- doesn't Deutch have one for many worlds he pushes?

Overall recommended to someone interested in philosophy of science. "Beginning of Infinity" I would recommend first though.
...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Mar 06, 2018 R Nair rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Terrific work not only on the history of quantum mechanics but also the dogmatic influence of Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics on Physics. This book really delves into how physicists correctly pointing out the problems within the Copenhagen interpretation were not taken seriously for decades based purely on blind faith that reality could not be explained within the Quantum mechanical framework. The 'shut-up and calculate' paradigm has been the workhorse of physics for such a ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Jul 08, 2019 Adrian Buck rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: math-sci

Niels Bohr, famous for the lack of clarity in his use of words, once suggested that clarity was complementary to truth; this suggests the clearer a statement is the less true it is, and the truer a statement is the less clear it is. Becker is a very clear writer: I was surprised that I was able to read a book on quantum physics so fluently. The way that Becker has done this without peddling us a load of falsehoods, is by not writing about quantum physics as such, but by writing a book about the Niels Bohr, famous for the lack of clarity in his use of words, once suggested that clarity was complementary to truth; this suggests the clearer a statement is the less true it is, and the truer a statement is the less clear it is. Becker is a very clear writer: I was surprised that I was able to read a book on quantum physics so fluently. The way that Becker has done this without peddling us a load of falsehoods, is by not writing about quantum physics as such, but by writing a book about the historical and philosophical conditions in which quantum mechanics was developed. He has also eliminated all the equations and much of the philosophical argument from his account. This probably made it much easier for me to read, I studied philosophy at college, and wish I studied history. But I'm feeling short changed on the physics front.

Becker wants to argue that although the majority of researchers working in quantum physics are happy to accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of the meaning of quantum mechanics, they shouldn't be: the Copenhagen Interpretation has stopped the development of physics and the discovery of quantum relativity - the theory of everything. He argues that this situation came about for three main reasons:
- The influence of Logical Positivism on the development of quantum theory
- Complacency about Neumann’s proof the of Copenhagen Interpretation
- Government funding of quantum research that isn’t interested in the foundations of quantum theory

I would like my review to offer a succinct definition of the Copenhagen Interpretation but find that on reading and understanding ‘What is real?’ I am unable to do so. In Becker’s defence he does suggest that the Copenhagen Interpretation is a bit of a cover up term, alluding to how the initial generation quantum physicists understood their own work with and around Niels Bohr at the University of Copenhagen’s Institute of Theoretical Physics. A term later coined and promoted by Werner Heisenberg to distract people from what he did during the war.

Becker suggests a key element of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that physics doesn’t actually have to explain the nature of quantum reality. He argues that under the influence of Logical Positivism, the early quantum physicists believed that science's job was to merely account for observable phenomena, not to explain how the ‘real’ nature of the ‘objects’ that cause that behaviour. Interestingly Bohr was not a logical positivist, but a Kantian and as such was open to the idea of a idealist metaphysics. I like Kant and would have liked to see a Kantian discussion of quantum physics. A Kantian for example could argue not that the reality of quantum objects is not outside the remit of science, but it outside the 'Bounds of Sense' a non-empirical world which we cannot subsume under the concepts of our understanding: a theory of everything will always lie outside the realm of empirical knowledge.

Despite the absence of reality from the Copenhagen Interpretation, another reason that the majority of scientists are happy to accept it is because they believe that John von Neumann mathematically proved that the Copenhagen Interpretation is not only true, but the only one possible. But Becker argues not only that Neumann's proof is wrong, but foolish, and to add further insult a mere girl had shown it as such way back in 1935, of course the girl was ignored because male chauvinism, and the quantum research world had to wait until 1966 when John Bell put them straight. Wow! Suddenly, reading this book was no mere exercise in curiosity - I had skin in the game.
I teach British and American Civilisation in a Hungarian secondary school, one of the topics I have to cover is Hungarians that have contributed to the civilisation of the UK or US, so I cover John von Neumann. I teach my kids about his contribution to quantum mechanics, this is what I tell them:

"Neumann’s work in Germany with David Hilbert culminated in his book 'The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics' (1932), which reconciled the apparently contradictory theories of Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg. It concluded that quantum phenomena really were indeterminate, not the result of as yet undiscovered deterministic physics. This convinced most physicists to accept the indeterminacy of the quantum world. Albert Einstein, however, refused to abandon his belief in determinism, insisting that “God does not play dice.""

Having read "What is real?" I have some problems with my own teaching materials. Most immediately, the meaning of 'indeterminate'. In the context of Einstein's 'dice' quotation, this seems to mean unpredictable. Another meaning of indeterminate is unmeasurable, and the measurement problem, unlike the random nature of quantum processes, is given much discussion in this book. Unfortunately understanding the measurement problem involves understanding the Schrödinger equation which gives rise to it, and that equation - like all others - although oft alluded to doesn't make it onto the page. This certainly makes it easier to read, but doesn't leave me in a position to correct my own teaching materials. My professional issues aside, the status of Neumann's proof is not adequately established in the book. Although described as failed, flawed and foolish, I can't say why: to do so would probably involve getting - again - some equations on the page, explaining what they mean and pointing out the errors in them. But then things would quickly get pretty murky pretty quickly. Becker moves on, concluding that Einstein's real problem was actually with the nonlocality - action at a 'spooky' distance - inherent in quantum mechanics, rather than the indeterminacy. The real thrust of the book is that the Copenhagen Interpretation needs to be replaced with a metaphysics that makes sense of the quantum world.

Becker’s observations about the effort of Government Research funding on the development of quantum physics are indisputable, he makes a nice comparison with quantum research in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Thank God for America.

Becker concludes that to make progress in their science again, Physicists need to return to Philosophy, I'm not so sure. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was expressly developed to epistemologically underwrite the classical world of Newtonian physics: i.e. the science came first, the philosophy later. Quantum physics is yet to find its Kant. But philosophical underpinnings, Kantian or Positivist seem to hold physics up as much spur it on. What physicists really need to do is come up with experimental ideas that test their theories, Bell showed this. In that the experimental demonstration on nonlocality in quantum physics is the big thing I learned from this book. Interestingly the result is a physically distribution of photons that are not reflect what we would expect to find statistically if locality was true.

The use of statistics to produce the result is interesting to me. When I was introduced to quantum physics in Advanced Physics and Chemistry at secondary school, I remember not being phased by the unpredictable nature of particles at the quantum level, because of the very large numbers of particles involved at the classical level. At the time I was also studying statistics, and we used the idea of approximate distributions, when very large numbers are involved, the (discrete) binomial distribution begins to look like the (continuous) normal distribution. When very large numbers of random quantum behaviours are aggregated the result is indistinguishable from classical behaviour. I've never seen the need for a boundary between quantum and classical worlds. We live in a quantum world that is usually classical, the difference is merely one of scale. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jun 06, 2018 Jim Coughenour rated it really liked it

Shelves: history_of_science, philosophy

One of the grand narratives of the 20th century is the history of physics – the elucidation of relativity by Einstein and the subsequent development of quantum physics by Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger et al. Richard Rhodes provides a superlative account in The Making of the Atomic Bomb, but there is a wealth to choose from, and I seem to pick up one or another of these histories every year because I enjoy the story so much. Becker’s book is something different, more serious despite its sometime One of the grand narratives of the 20th century is the history of physics – the elucidation of relativity by Einstein and the subsequent development of quantum physics by Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger et al. Richard Rhodes provides a superlative account in The Making of the Atomic Bomb, but there is a wealth to choose from, and I seem to pick up one or another of these histories every year because I enjoy the story so much. Becker’s book is something different, more serious despite its sometimes jocular tone. He argues that many physicists have surrendered the search for the nature of reality, accepting an interpretation of quantum physics that works astonishingly well in practice but is fundamentally obscure, if not mistaken.

I won’t summarize the argument: if you’ve read this far you’ve probably already decided if this is your kind of book or not. For those who might be interested I’ll just say that Becker tells the standard story differently. Neils Bohr, treated as a secular saint by virtually everyone, is less winning here, and Heisenberg doesn’t get the usual pass for his activities during World War II. Einstein is treated as more perceptive than his challengers (he’s usually characterized as an old genius who can’t accept the fabled uncertainty of quantum reality). Even more interesting is the cast of characters Becker introduces from what was once the fringe of physics: David Bohm, Hugh Everett, and John Stewart Bell. Bohm and Bell have long fascinated me – Bohm for his theory of pilot waves and the “implicate order,” Bell for his theory of entanglement. I’d never heard of Everett, who is quite a character. In Becker’s account Bohr’s “Copenhagen interpretation” is a “tranquilizing philosophy,” an orthodoxy of dubious merit, and its doubters and heretics are punished by the faithful. Bright young physicists suffer from asking the wrong questions – Becker brings a few of their stories to life.

It’s a fascinating story, presented in terms a non-scientist can understand. Given Becker’s perspective, I’d expect some harsh reviews from other side of the debate. It demonstrates that long-standing philosophical questions endure, that clarity and honesty require responsibility and courage, and that the world is stranger than we think even when we make a fetish of its strangeness. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jul 10, 2018 Terry rated it liked it

Shelves: non-fiction, science, history, 2018

This book is a consideration on the failures of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and the difficulties in advancing a science without a model. The Copenhagen interpretation states that quantum states collapse when a measurement is made but seemingly every word in that description is open to interpretation. The messiest being the word "measurement". What counts as a measurement or observation or interaction? If large systems are built of quantum mechanical systems and measurement ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Apr 19, 2018 Michael Flick rated it it was amazing

History of some of the confusions, questions, and controversies surrounding quantum mechanics, unfortunately without clear answers because there aren’t any—except that the long and generally accepted Copenhagen interpretation is wrong and has held things back from its outset. When the mighty say “shut up and calculate,” you know that it’s time to ask questions. No answer to the “What is Real?” question—but an urgent need to keep asking.

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Aug 02, 2018 Andreea Reads rated it it was amazing

Quantum Physics, Philosophy and History in one book! Not just a book, but a wonderfully well written and researched one. I came across someone's recommendation of this book while browsing through the reviews of one of Carlo Rovelli's books (having read 3 of them!) and I am truly grateful that I did. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jan 01, 2021 Tom rated it it was amazing

Absolutely fantastic, can't recommend enough for anyone interested in physics, philosophy, history of science, or just a gripping nonfiction read. See also Tim Maudlin's review of it and Errol Morris' 'Ashtray'. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

May 10, 2018 Jason Furman rated it it was amazing

Shelves: nonfiction, science, physics

An excellent book that does not answer the title question—but is mostly convincing that the question is worth asking and that we can make scientific progress in addressing it. The book is well written with an interspersing of human stories, scientific description, and Becker’s own more original analysis/arguments/interpretation of the historical field of “quantum foundations”, which is to say understanding what the weird equations of quantum mechanics mean.

Unlike most histories of science, Adam An excellent book that does not answer the title question—but is mostly convincing that the question is worth asking and that we can make scientific progress in addressing it. The book is well written with an interspersing of human stories, scientific description, and Becker’s own more original analysis/arguments/interpretation of the historical field of “quantum foundations”, which is to say understanding what the weird equations of quantum mechanics mean.

Unlike most histories of science, Adam Becker’s book in some ways is about failure and going badly off track not success. Specifically, the failure of physicists to think seriously about the origins and meanings of quantum mechanics, the marginalization of those who tried to, and the problems that come from physicists acting as amateur philosophers without being aware of major developments in philosophy (like realism overcoming logical positivism/empiricism).

Adam Becker borders on scathing on Bohr and the circle’s around him’s devleopment of what came to be called the “Copenhagen Interpretation” of quantum mechanics. The interpretation centered around probabilistic waves becoming deterministic particles when they are somehow measured by a measuring apparatus that is itself deterministic. In effect, they were assuming that classical mechanics applied to large objects but quantum mechanics to small ones. And more to the point, they were taking an attitude that has been described as “shut up and calculate.”

Becker has four arguments against the Copenhagen interpretation: (i) that it was actually a lot of different interpretations by a lot of different people and never actually a single interpretation; (ii) that all of these failed basic tests of logical consistency; (iii) that all of this was reinforced by Bohr’s charisma and his circle’s antagonism to challenging the intreptation; and (iv) that this is consequential because it inhibits the devlopment of new scientific questions and potential experiments.

Becker then develops some of the alternative interpretations at great length together with mini-biograophies and descriptions of the process of discovery, placing the most emphasis on Bohm’s deterministic pilot waves idea, Everett’s Many Worlds hypothesis and Bell’s inequality. He then rushes briefly through some other ideas towards the end of the book, including superdeterminism, and information theory.

The biographies he tells of these scientists—including Bohr’s exile to Brazil, Everett’s greater interest in drinking/womanizing than in physics, and Bell publishing in a random journal rather than a top one—is not just ancillary entertainment but a core part of the argument. Most science stories are about progress and triumph. This one is to some degree about contingency and chance and the ways it can lead science astray. Bohr’s charisma vs. the problems of the alternative messengers are treated as historical accidents that affected the ability to have a more full debate/research program on the foundations of quantum mechanics. When this was combined with incentives (e.g., all the funding for physics coming from the military) the effects were powerful.

One strength of Becker’s book is his serious intergration of analytic philosophy, his excellent explanations of it, and his relating this to developments in quantum mechanics. He takes the reader through the establishment of logical positivism/empiricism/falsifiability as theories, shows how they were linked to/supported the Copenhagen interpretation, but then shows how these theories have since been superseded in philosophy by a recognition that you cannot just limit yourself to testing empirical predictions but have to embed these tests in a broader theory of underlying reality. Becker is very critical of physicists who are still in a positivist mold which he views as being unaware of the last 50 years of developments in analytical philosophy.

Becker’s book leaves me partially convinced by his conclusion but only partially. He is convincing that the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong/incoherent but is less convincing about the utility of developing alternatives. The proliferation of so many alternatives, the inability to decide between them, and the lack of any large convincing progresss that came out their development leave me wondering whether their marginalization is a self-fulfilling prophecy or maybe inherent in their approach. That said, given uncertainty about where/how we will make scientific progress continuing along the path of better understanding the reality underlying the weirdness of quantum mechanics seems like a worthwhile activity for at least a small fraction of physicists—and Becker is completely convincing that outdated philosophy and internally inconsistent arguments should not be used to deter these investigations. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Feb 26, 2019 Scott Schlotfelt rated it it was ok

This isn't a bad book. It's just poorly titled. The title should have been "The History and Hidden Politics Behind Quantum Physics." That title won't sell books though. It seems to me that the publisher had a conversation with the author and said, "Let's call it 'What Is Real?' It will be intriguing and will broaden your audience so that more people will buy it. The author agreed and at the tail end of the book, figured he should probably go ahead and address this "What Is Real?" question so he This isn't a bad book. It's just poorly titled. The title should have been "The History and Hidden Politics Behind Quantum Physics." That title won't sell books though. It seems to me that the publisher had a conversation with the author and said, "Let's call it 'What Is Real?' It will be intriguing and will broaden your audience so that more people will buy it. The author agreed and at the tail end of the book, figured he should probably go ahead and address this "What Is Real?" question so he tacked on the last two pages (literally, I'm pretty sure that's the only time he addressed that question).

Understand, I am not a physics genius in any way, shape or form. The book did give a good overview of the evolution of thought in quantum physics over the last 100 years so that I had a better understanding. I learned that there have been two schools of thought in quantum physics that have been highly influenced by politics among scientists and how the science got supported by the government or universities.

I'm not sure what I was expecting from this book but I definitely didn't expect it to really read like a history book. Only in the last chapter does the author address more of what quantum physics (or foundations?) means for everyday life and ponder some of the larger questions. Also, if you are thinking that this book will even mildly entertain theories by Deepak Chopra (whom I haven't studied enough to have an informed opinion) or his ilk with regard to how quantum physics could be influencing the mind, the body, the spirit, etc., don't bother. Chopra is essentially lumped in with the other, as the author puts it, "quantum health-care scams." I find it interesting that for most of the book, the author subtly defends scientists who were willing to entertain what used to be considered pseudo-science and then turns around to quickly criticize what is considered pseudo-science today. Seemed a little hypocritical.

Again, great book if you're interested in the history of quantum thought. Retitle it please! ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Dec 31, 2018 Sean rated it it was amazing

Shelves: 6-star-favorites, physics

Excellent book. You really need to like physics to fully follow this book. It might not have equations, but it requires you to be ready to discuss serious meanings of quantum physics. Extremely well researched. Fantastic insight to all the personalities involved. The author respects all the players, but talks very frankly about them as people with histories, political motives, academic motives and their time/place in human history. As a physics teacher, I fully understand today's "Shut up and Ca ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

May 07, 2018 Paperclippe rated it really liked it

Shelves: stand-back-im-going-to-try-science, this-is-my-happy-place, true-facts, you-might-learn-something

I first heard about this book when the author, Adam Becker, was first on Cara Santa Maria's "Talk Nerdy" podcast, and he had such a cool personality and a sound worldview that I knew I was gonna have to pick this book up.

I was not disappointed. This is the popsci book I've been waiting for. Most books of this type take way too long detailing the history of physics and then don't have much steam or space left to talk about recent advances in the field, like quantum physics. This book does the opp ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review