What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog
When Quantum Physics expert Dr Chad Orzel went to adopt a dog he never imagined he would end up with one as inquisitive as Emmy. Could she use quantum tunnelling to get through the neighbour's fence and chase bunnies? What about quantum teleportation to catch squirrels before they climb out of reach? In this witty and informative book, Orzel and Emmy - the talking dog - discuss the key theories of Quantum Physics and its fascinating history. From quarks and gluons to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, this is the perfect introduction to the fundamental laws which govern the universe.
296 pages, Paperback
First published November 30, 2009
782 people are currently reading
5375 people want to read
About the author
Chad Orzel
13 books89 followersChad Orzel is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Union College in Schenectady, NY.
He studied at University of Maryland, College Park, MD: PhD in Chemical Physics, 1999 and Williams College, Williamstown, MA: BA in Physics, 1993.
From 1999-2001, Chad was a Postdoctoral Associate in the Physics Department at Yale University, studying Bose-Einstein Condensation (BEC) in the group of Mark Kasevich.
Chad has published in Science Magazine, Physics World and his PhD thesis research was carried out in the Laser Cooling Group at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
He studied at University of Maryland, College Park, MD: PhD in Chemical Physics, 1999 and Williams College, Williamstown, MA: BA in Physics, 1993.
From 1999-2001, Chad was a Postdoctoral Associate in the Physics Department at Yale University, studying Bose-Einstein Condensation (BEC) in the group of Mark Kasevich.
Chad has published in Science Magazine, Physics World and his PhD thesis research was carried out in the Laser Cooling Group at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 301 reviews
January 25, 2016
WARNING
If you kindly devote some of your time to reading this review, you may become frustrated. Because I am not referring directly to Chad's book very much. I am expressing thoughts that were triggered through my reading of his book, and I find these thoughts fascinating. Still, there is a link to the book, and you will find it in the middle of my blurb under the heading "A message to Chad".
The universe is making fun of me
So here's the problem: Particles do not exist - fields do. Fields do not exist - particles do.
This insight is not helping me. In fact, I find that it leaves me profoundly frustrated. Clearly, the universe is conspiring against me. It is thwarting all my efforts to grasp what is going on. My intuition is failing. The way I have thought about the world all my life is useless when trying to understand how the world works at a deeper level. I am in a quagmire, I am thrashing around, straining to grasp the branch of a tree in an attempt to steady myself, to lift myself onto solid ground.
The branch snaps, and I am being sucked down a little deeper into the pit.
But hold on. Perhaps the problem is that I am not expressing myself properly. Perhaps the universe is not out to upset me. Perhaps I am just not using the right words.
So let me try this again.
What is a particle?
My view of what a particle is has been shaped by an intellectual tradition that goes back to, indeed was started by, the Greek atomists of antiquity. As far as I know, Democritus is held to be the first philosopher who expounded an idea that matter is composed of indivisible entities called atoms. Although Plato thought the complexity of the universe could not be explained by the mere notion of atoms, his own idea of what we today call the "Platonic solids" shares with Democritus the notion that the world is composed of basic building blocks. Aristotle contradicted this idea by stating that the four elements (fire, water, earth, air) were continuous, but the idea of atomism survived the Middle Ages in the form of commentaries on Aristotle before experiencing a renaissance after the 16th century through thinkers such as Bacon, Gallileo, Hobbes, and, although in a slightly different form, Descartes.
So the idea that an elementary particle is a tiny billiard ball that interacts with others just as its macroscopic counterparts in a game of pool (or snookers) is deeply ingrained, and I cannot shake it. But the insights of quantum physics tell a story that is simply irreconcilable with this mental picture. For one thing, these particles do not have a well-defined position. Before we try to measure the position, there is a chance that we will find the particle here, there, and everywhere. And in the case of these 'particles', this is not just a phrase! The normal state of a particle is "superposition", a state in which it exists in different positions at once. Another thing that is vaguely unsettling is that a particle can be part of a system in which it gives up its individual existence. In the spooky phenomenon called "entanglement", two particles duplicate each other's properties but also the range of spacetime points at which they may be encountered by a measuring observer. So, does it still make sense to speak of entangled particles in the plural? Are there really 'two'? What happens to the ultra-fundamental human concept of countability when we deal with entangled states?
Well then. If a particle can be in different positions at once, and lose its haecceity (the characteristics that define a thing as a particular thing, also known in philosophical literature by the funny expression "thisness"), then we are really not dealing with tiny billiard balls at all, are we?
I am slowly approaching an insight here, I think. Maybe the universe is not playing a mischievous trick on me. Maybe language is. It makes no sense calling something a 'particle' that refuses to behave like objects that I associate with the word. So we really shouldn't. But what is it that 'particle physics' analyses? What do particle colliders collide? What do particle detectors detect?
Who knows. Language has developed to describe things that we need to talk about because they happen in a world accessible to our sensory toolkit. Quantum things do not. So we are left with metaphors. I have started to think about particles as a kind of non-local 'fog' that is spread out across the entire universe, with different densities at different, specific, spacetime locations. The particles detected by particle detectors are more like ripples in a field, or "excitations of the sensory material", as German philosopher and physicist Meinard Kuhlmann said in a recent article in Scientific American ("What is Real?", in Physics at the Limits, Scientific American Special Edition Winter 2015).
Ok then. Disturbances in a field. This is much better.
What is a field?
Only it isn't. Turns out we are running into very similar linguistic problems when we adopt the expression 'field' in the hope this would solve the issues. But it is a slightly different kind of problem. This problem is at the same time less and also more severe. It is less so because the mental image of a 'field' seems less ingrained in the collective psyche than that of a 'particle'. But the physical description of a 'quantum field' turns out to be even more elusive if we insist that we cannot use a purely mathematical description to capture it.
Anybody who was forced by their physics teacher at school to comment on the way that iron filings orientate when brought into proximity with a magnet knows what the classical interpretation of a field is. A classical field is a near-physical object in which every point has a uniquely measurable identity. I can measure the strength of a magnetic field in any one location. I can measure the force between a probe and the charge of an electric field at any point in the field.
Not so for a quantum field. Quantum fields are non-local, and their quantities are not assigned to any specific points in space-time. Instead, their values are determined by a mathematical idea called the 'state vector'. The state vector can be formulated as a direct consequence of the superposition state of the 'particles' that give rise to the quantum field. In a baffling feat, 'particles' exist in all their allowed states simultaneously, like a schizophrenic who manages to act out all his different personalities at once. Accordingly, the state vector is a sort of probability-weighted average of all the allowed states of a 'particle'.
Language as we know it simply fails to do justice to these phenomena. We have not developed any words that would allow us to capture these dynamics, simply because we never had any need to.
A message to Chad
So perhaps we should not try. I feel that quantum physics, just as relativity theory, cannot be understood at a satisfactory intellectual level by reference to concepts we know. I am aware that in my own review, I have done the same, and introduced the metaphors of 'fog' and 'schizophrenic' to capture the behaviour of particles. But of course, while these words may help me to visualise what a state vector is a bit better, they may confuse others even more.
Metaphors are not helpful in getting to grips with non-empirical subjects! So, Chad, would you please stop with the dog and the squirrels. I thought you explained the physics well, and I liked your book for these explanations, but I found myself skipping over the animal-metaphors very early on. I know that dog of yours is a brain-box, but I must confess I liked your book despite its unique selling point, rather than because of it.
How shall we think about the world, then?
Still. There is something that still leaves me unsatisfied. I am perfectly happy, on one level, to learn the maths required and think about 'particles' as state-vectors, and of their propagation as 'probability-waves', but there is something still missing. I still want to develop an intuitive understanding of these processes, I am not entirely content to leave them consigned to the realm of abstract mathematics.
So what do we do? Help may be at hand in the form of a new branch of philosophical thought, unhelpfully, and I would even argue incorrectly, called 'trope ontology'. The first part of this weird expression is just a neologism for the expression 'property', and the second part refers to the philosophy of 'existence' (but, I would argue, the use of this expression is misleading, as the classical interpretation of ontology is exactly reversed in this new philosophy).
The idea of this revised way of thinking about reality is to reverse the relationship between an object and its properties - and then get rid of the object. Meinard Kuhlmann, one proponent of this way of thinking, gives the example of a ball in the article I referenced earlier - I am going to go beyond what Meinard said, but my thoughts on this subject rest on his idea:
Consider a simple object, say a red, squishy ball. An adult recognises the object as a ball first, and then identifies properties attached to the object - round, spherical, squishy, red. An infant would not do this. An infant would recognise the properties first: there's something bright, it is squishy to the touch, and it feels the same way whichever way I hold it. Later on, the infant learns to refer to this bundle of properties by using a shortcut phonetic code. This code is the word 'ball'. Through usage, the infant will then learn to replace the bundle of properties with the linguistic label. At that point, the transition will be complete - the ball will have properties, the bundle of properties will no longer exist independently of its physical carrier, as they used to do in the observer's infancy.
But if we thought of objects as abstract bundles of properties, we would find it easier to intuit the world of quantum dynamics. What we used to call a 'particle' is a collection of properties. These properties do not need a physical carrier to exist meaningfully, and as they do not, neither do they need a linguistic label that fixes a mental picture that robs them of this free existence. The properties are mass, charge, and spin, and also position and momentum.
So it seems that the new and alien world of quantum physics may provide more than a deeper understanding of nature. If understood well, it may re-define our relationship with language itself, and remind us that words are simply shortcuts that we use to define bundles of properties. If we managed to understand this fact consciously, we would enhance our ability to grasp the dynamics around us on a philosophically deeper level than ever before. We would be able to recognise the limitations of language, and in so doing re-define somewhat the idea that we and 'reality' are somehow disparate entities. The study of quantum physics, combined with a conscious re-definition of how we perceive reality, may lead us again to the insight that a conscious intellect is the 'unverse observing itself', and even cross Wittgenstein's barrier that language is the final obstacle to reality.
Why Four Stars?
Well. For some time while I was reading the book, I was in two minds about my rating. In fact, I was in five minds, one for each potential rating for the book. I existed in a state of superposition of five allowable states at once, and the state vector describing this phenomenon is:
|Rating> = a(1) |*> + a(2) |**> + a(3) |***> + a(4) |****> + a(5) |*****>
The amplitudes 'a(t)' of the states '|Stars>' are complex numbers normalised so that the sum of their squared moduli is unity (equals one). The amplitudes a1 to a5 in my state vector are 1/8; 1/4; 1/2; 1/sqrt(2); sqrt(11)/8. When I measured my state, I found that the outcome was "4 stars" with highest probability of 50%.
If you kindly devote some of your time to reading this review, you may become frustrated. Because I am not referring directly to Chad's book very much. I am expressing thoughts that were triggered through my reading of his book, and I find these thoughts fascinating. Still, there is a link to the book, and you will find it in the middle of my blurb under the heading "A message to Chad".
The universe is making fun of me
So here's the problem: Particles do not exist - fields do. Fields do not exist - particles do.
This insight is not helping me. In fact, I find that it leaves me profoundly frustrated. Clearly, the universe is conspiring against me. It is thwarting all my efforts to grasp what is going on. My intuition is failing. The way I have thought about the world all my life is useless when trying to understand how the world works at a deeper level. I am in a quagmire, I am thrashing around, straining to grasp the branch of a tree in an attempt to steady myself, to lift myself onto solid ground.
The branch snaps, and I am being sucked down a little deeper into the pit.
But hold on. Perhaps the problem is that I am not expressing myself properly. Perhaps the universe is not out to upset me. Perhaps I am just not using the right words.
So let me try this again.
What is a particle?
My view of what a particle is has been shaped by an intellectual tradition that goes back to, indeed was started by, the Greek atomists of antiquity. As far as I know, Democritus is held to be the first philosopher who expounded an idea that matter is composed of indivisible entities called atoms. Although Plato thought the complexity of the universe could not be explained by the mere notion of atoms, his own idea of what we today call the "Platonic solids" shares with Democritus the notion that the world is composed of basic building blocks. Aristotle contradicted this idea by stating that the four elements (fire, water, earth, air) were continuous, but the idea of atomism survived the Middle Ages in the form of commentaries on Aristotle before experiencing a renaissance after the 16th century through thinkers such as Bacon, Gallileo, Hobbes, and, although in a slightly different form, Descartes.
So the idea that an elementary particle is a tiny billiard ball that interacts with others just as its macroscopic counterparts in a game of pool (or snookers) is deeply ingrained, and I cannot shake it. But the insights of quantum physics tell a story that is simply irreconcilable with this mental picture. For one thing, these particles do not have a well-defined position. Before we try to measure the position, there is a chance that we will find the particle here, there, and everywhere. And in the case of these 'particles', this is not just a phrase! The normal state of a particle is "superposition", a state in which it exists in different positions at once. Another thing that is vaguely unsettling is that a particle can be part of a system in which it gives up its individual existence. In the spooky phenomenon called "entanglement", two particles duplicate each other's properties but also the range of spacetime points at which they may be encountered by a measuring observer. So, does it still make sense to speak of entangled particles in the plural? Are there really 'two'? What happens to the ultra-fundamental human concept of countability when we deal with entangled states?
Well then. If a particle can be in different positions at once, and lose its haecceity (the characteristics that define a thing as a particular thing, also known in philosophical literature by the funny expression "thisness"), then we are really not dealing with tiny billiard balls at all, are we?
I am slowly approaching an insight here, I think. Maybe the universe is not playing a mischievous trick on me. Maybe language is. It makes no sense calling something a 'particle' that refuses to behave like objects that I associate with the word. So we really shouldn't. But what is it that 'particle physics' analyses? What do particle colliders collide? What do particle detectors detect?
Who knows. Language has developed to describe things that we need to talk about because they happen in a world accessible to our sensory toolkit. Quantum things do not. So we are left with metaphors. I have started to think about particles as a kind of non-local 'fog' that is spread out across the entire universe, with different densities at different, specific, spacetime locations. The particles detected by particle detectors are more like ripples in a field, or "excitations of the sensory material", as German philosopher and physicist Meinard Kuhlmann said in a recent article in Scientific American ("What is Real?", in Physics at the Limits, Scientific American Special Edition Winter 2015).
Ok then. Disturbances in a field. This is much better.
What is a field?
Only it isn't. Turns out we are running into very similar linguistic problems when we adopt the expression 'field' in the hope this would solve the issues. But it is a slightly different kind of problem. This problem is at the same time less and also more severe. It is less so because the mental image of a 'field' seems less ingrained in the collective psyche than that of a 'particle'. But the physical description of a 'quantum field' turns out to be even more elusive if we insist that we cannot use a purely mathematical description to capture it.
Anybody who was forced by their physics teacher at school to comment on the way that iron filings orientate when brought into proximity with a magnet knows what the classical interpretation of a field is. A classical field is a near-physical object in which every point has a uniquely measurable identity. I can measure the strength of a magnetic field in any one location. I can measure the force between a probe and the charge of an electric field at any point in the field.
Not so for a quantum field. Quantum fields are non-local, and their quantities are not assigned to any specific points in space-time. Instead, their values are determined by a mathematical idea called the 'state vector'. The state vector can be formulated as a direct consequence of the superposition state of the 'particles' that give rise to the quantum field. In a baffling feat, 'particles' exist in all their allowed states simultaneously, like a schizophrenic who manages to act out all his different personalities at once. Accordingly, the state vector is a sort of probability-weighted average of all the allowed states of a 'particle'.
Language as we know it simply fails to do justice to these phenomena. We have not developed any words that would allow us to capture these dynamics, simply because we never had any need to.
A message to Chad
So perhaps we should not try. I feel that quantum physics, just as relativity theory, cannot be understood at a satisfactory intellectual level by reference to concepts we know. I am aware that in my own review, I have done the same, and introduced the metaphors of 'fog' and 'schizophrenic' to capture the behaviour of particles. But of course, while these words may help me to visualise what a state vector is a bit better, they may confuse others even more.
Metaphors are not helpful in getting to grips with non-empirical subjects! So, Chad, would you please stop with the dog and the squirrels. I thought you explained the physics well, and I liked your book for these explanations, but I found myself skipping over the animal-metaphors very early on. I know that dog of yours is a brain-box, but I must confess I liked your book despite its unique selling point, rather than because of it.
How shall we think about the world, then?
Still. There is something that still leaves me unsatisfied. I am perfectly happy, on one level, to learn the maths required and think about 'particles' as state-vectors, and of their propagation as 'probability-waves', but there is something still missing. I still want to develop an intuitive understanding of these processes, I am not entirely content to leave them consigned to the realm of abstract mathematics.
So what do we do? Help may be at hand in the form of a new branch of philosophical thought, unhelpfully, and I would even argue incorrectly, called 'trope ontology'. The first part of this weird expression is just a neologism for the expression 'property', and the second part refers to the philosophy of 'existence' (but, I would argue, the use of this expression is misleading, as the classical interpretation of ontology is exactly reversed in this new philosophy).
The idea of this revised way of thinking about reality is to reverse the relationship between an object and its properties - and then get rid of the object. Meinard Kuhlmann, one proponent of this way of thinking, gives the example of a ball in the article I referenced earlier - I am going to go beyond what Meinard said, but my thoughts on this subject rest on his idea:
Consider a simple object, say a red, squishy ball. An adult recognises the object as a ball first, and then identifies properties attached to the object - round, spherical, squishy, red. An infant would not do this. An infant would recognise the properties first: there's something bright, it is squishy to the touch, and it feels the same way whichever way I hold it. Later on, the infant learns to refer to this bundle of properties by using a shortcut phonetic code. This code is the word 'ball'. Through usage, the infant will then learn to replace the bundle of properties with the linguistic label. At that point, the transition will be complete - the ball will have properties, the bundle of properties will no longer exist independently of its physical carrier, as they used to do in the observer's infancy.
But if we thought of objects as abstract bundles of properties, we would find it easier to intuit the world of quantum dynamics. What we used to call a 'particle' is a collection of properties. These properties do not need a physical carrier to exist meaningfully, and as they do not, neither do they need a linguistic label that fixes a mental picture that robs them of this free existence. The properties are mass, charge, and spin, and also position and momentum.
So it seems that the new and alien world of quantum physics may provide more than a deeper understanding of nature. If understood well, it may re-define our relationship with language itself, and remind us that words are simply shortcuts that we use to define bundles of properties. If we managed to understand this fact consciously, we would enhance our ability to grasp the dynamics around us on a philosophically deeper level than ever before. We would be able to recognise the limitations of language, and in so doing re-define somewhat the idea that we and 'reality' are somehow disparate entities. The study of quantum physics, combined with a conscious re-definition of how we perceive reality, may lead us again to the insight that a conscious intellect is the 'unverse observing itself', and even cross Wittgenstein's barrier that language is the final obstacle to reality.
Why Four Stars?
Well. For some time while I was reading the book, I was in two minds about my rating. In fact, I was in five minds, one for each potential rating for the book. I existed in a state of superposition of five allowable states at once, and the state vector describing this phenomenon is:
|Rating> = a(1) |*> + a(2) |**> + a(3) |***> + a(4) |****> + a(5) |*****>
The amplitudes 'a(t)' of the states '|Stars>' are complex numbers normalised so that the sum of their squared moduli is unity (equals one). The amplitudes a1 to a5 in my state vector are 1/8; 1/4; 1/2; 1/sqrt(2); sqrt(11)/8. When I measured my state, I found that the outcome was "4 stars" with highest probability of 50%.
November 20, 2016
I loved almost every page. I've seen quite a few comments that thought the "talking to the dog" metaphor got tired. All I can say to those people is "you obviously don't love your dog!" Or, worse, perhaps you're a cat person. My only problem with Emmy (the dog) was that she's clearly smarter than my dog, who really didn't get a thing out of this book.
Like when Emmy doesn't get a joke: ‘“It's a physics joke,” I explain, because that always makes things funnier.’ How can that not be funny?
Orzel has a tendency to state a proposition, then use it later as a proof, which is bad science but probably good science-writing—actually demonstrating the proof would lose a lot of readers. For instance, "Back in chapter 2, we saw that the wave nature of matter gives rise to zero-point energy…" Well, no, we didn't. Back in chapter 2, he stated that. And, in fact, near the end of the book, where I pulled this quote, he actually does explain zero-point energy better. We didn't "see" this in chapter 2, but that's really just a quibble with his English rather than a complaint about the way he explains his physics.
Whenever Orzel starts getting too far into dry science, Emmy gets him back on track. "So, basically, nothing is defined in an absolute sense? Isn't that kind of … postmodern?" No wonder I have so much trouble with quantum mechanics. I have so much trouble with postmodernism…
I was a bit disappointed in what I thought was short shrift given to the Many Worlds interpretation, but I guess his point was essentially that it could be entirely right but we can't ever know, because all those other worlds are lost to us. But again, Emmy keeps us on track. She likes the Many Worlds interpretation, because it has quantum bunnies made of cheese. She's not so enthralled with the Copenhagen interpretation: "I don't think I like this interpretation, it's awfully solipsistic, isn't it?" Well, duh, that's the postmodernism thing, again. Again, I'm a little disappointed in my dog. I had to define solipsistic for Vinka (which, of course, meant I had to check the dictionary).
Orzel may understand quantum physics, but he's not always right about dogs. "A dog won't find dropped food on the same block every day, and a photon won't interact with a molecule in the same part of the interferometer every time." I beg to differ. My dog can be guaranteed to find food on the same block of Wolsdon street every morning. I'd give it about an 80% probability of being in front of one of three houses.
Emmy also makes some great observations. On quantum tunneling:
“So the electrons just drill holes through the barrier?”
“No, they pass through it as if it weren’t there at all. They don’t have enough energy to punch through.”
“But how do you know that?”
“Well, the electrons show up on the far side of the barrier with exactly the same energy as before they hit it. If they were boring little holes through the barrier, they would lose some energy in the process, and we’d be able to detect that.”
“Maybe they���re just really tiny holes?”
“No, we can look at that with a scanning probe microscope, and there aren’t holes.”
That's a pretty huge jump. Again, we're expected to accept that what he has just stated as a proposition is actually proven. How do we know that a scanning probe microscope can actually detect those "really tiny holes?"
Sometimes Orzel makes statements he never makes any attempt to explain. On quantum teleportation: “You could use it to make a quantum version of the Internet, if you had a couple of quantum computers that you needed to connect together.” I know a fair bit about the Internet, a fair bit about physics, and have a better than average understanding of quantum mechanics… and I'd love to know how that's going to work.
My biggest complaint with the book is actually nothing to do with Orzel. As written, it keeps citing page numbers of previously mentioned theorems and experiments: but they refer to a page number in some particular dead-tree-book edition. They aren't correct in my e-book edition, and they probably wouldn't have been correct in every DTB edition—or if they are (which means they must have been corrected for every other edition) why aren't they corrected for the e-book? It's particularly strange, because this e-book had the best footnoting of any e-book I've ever read, but it couldn't do page references.
All in all, it's a great introduction to quantum physics for people who know nothing of physics. It's not useless for people like me who have a fair bit of physics background, but are not up on QED; and of course it's probably terrible if you're a graduate quantum physicist.
But, dammit, we got through the whole book, and Vinka is still asking me why you can't know both the momentum and the position of a squirrel. Are we going to have to read this again?
Postscript [2017.11.20]: Perhaps I've been unfair to Vinka. This morning, as always, she was stalking squirrels in the park. Normally, when she goes on point, I can trust that there really is a squirrel, even if I can't see it, but this time I was certain there was no squirrel.
"There's nothing there."
"Wait…," Vinka said.
We did, and sure enough a squirrel hopped into view.
"See—quantum physics! If you wait long enough, particles are generated spontaneously."
"But, Vinka, they're generated in pairs. If there's a spontaneouosly created squirrel, there has to be an anti-squirrel."
"Well, duh!" she said. "I'm the anti-squirrel!"
Perhaps she got more out of this book than I had thought.
September 9, 2020
There are things about quantum physics that fascinate me. What Einstein called “spooky influence at a distance.” Tunneling. Heisenberg uncertainty. Particle-wave duality. Virtual particles. I’m a humanities creative type, and so I struggle to understand the science behind quantum mechanics. But intuitively it makes so much sense, and so I keep trying to understand.
Chad Orzel’s book How to Teach [Quantum] Physics to Your Dog is an enjoyable analysis of many of the basic concepts of quantum mechanics. Before reading the book, I was a little concerned about it being just another “cutesy” approach to a very difficult topic. But the reviews of the book were positive, and I really love dogs, so I bought it. The book alternates between short conversations with Orzel’s dog, an unusually intelligent animal who wants to use quantum mechanics to catch squirrels and rabbits, and Orzel’s straightforward presentation of the science behind the basic concepts. The conversations with the dog, although they actually are occasionally a bit cutesy, are funny and do add information that helps clarify the science presented.
At a length of just a couple of hundred pages, the book doesn’t cover all quantum ideas, but it also doesn’t bury the reader under a mountain of scientific jargon and data. It uses just enough math to get the ideas across and frames much of the interpretation in metaphors based on the dog’s desire to catch little furry animals.
Quantum mechanics is never an easy topic for me, and I had to re-read pages occasionally and work my way through the concepts. But I found it rewarding. Orzel establishes a good foundation for the reader by developing the key ideas and establishing a basic vocabulary.
Chad Orzel’s book How to Teach [Quantum] Physics to Your Dog is an enjoyable analysis of many of the basic concepts of quantum mechanics. Before reading the book, I was a little concerned about it being just another “cutesy” approach to a very difficult topic. But the reviews of the book were positive, and I really love dogs, so I bought it. The book alternates between short conversations with Orzel’s dog, an unusually intelligent animal who wants to use quantum mechanics to catch squirrels and rabbits, and Orzel’s straightforward presentation of the science behind the basic concepts. The conversations with the dog, although they actually are occasionally a bit cutesy, are funny and do add information that helps clarify the science presented.
At a length of just a couple of hundred pages, the book doesn’t cover all quantum ideas, but it also doesn’t bury the reader under a mountain of scientific jargon and data. It uses just enough math to get the ideas across and frames much of the interpretation in metaphors based on the dog’s desire to catch little furry animals.
Quantum mechanics is never an easy topic for me, and I had to re-read pages occasionally and work my way through the concepts. But I found it rewarding. Orzel establishes a good foundation for the reader by developing the key ideas and establishing a basic vocabulary.
April 5, 2021
“Quantum mechanics seems baffling and troubling to humans because it confounds our commonsense expectations about how the world works.”
No wonder my brain struggled with this. It’s quite difficult to even think about and visualize how quantum mechanics work. This book tries with best intentions, simplest explanations and concrete examples to explain the this mind-boggling branch of modern physics under the comfy blanket of conversations with a dog. Here you will find the most fundamental concepts related to quantum physics explained: Uncertainty principle, particle-wave duality, many worlds theory and quantum entanglement. I really enjoyed the style and narration of this, turning such a complex subject into a fun and educational reading. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not easy to read and after some chapters I had to watch some videos and do further reading to really comprehend the things covered here. If you’re really into quantum mechanics and learn about it but you have little or no knowledge of the concept, you will definitely enjoy this but you have to prepare yourself for some hard and heavy-duty reading, it took me almost two months to complete this little compact book.
No wonder my brain struggled with this. It’s quite difficult to even think about and visualize how quantum mechanics work. This book tries with best intentions, simplest explanations and concrete examples to explain the this mind-boggling branch of modern physics under the comfy blanket of conversations with a dog. Here you will find the most fundamental concepts related to quantum physics explained: Uncertainty principle, particle-wave duality, many worlds theory and quantum entanglement. I really enjoyed the style and narration of this, turning such a complex subject into a fun and educational reading. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not easy to read and after some chapters I had to watch some videos and do further reading to really comprehend the things covered here. If you’re really into quantum mechanics and learn about it but you have little or no knowledge of the concept, you will definitely enjoy this but you have to prepare yourself for some hard and heavy-duty reading, it took me almost two months to complete this little compact book.
March 26, 2021
Either I'm a little dumber than this guy's dog or the dog has a basic understanding of physics.
April 10, 2010
One of the things I love to do is browse around in the library looking at whatever catches my attention. I like to look over the new fiction and nonfiction sections, as well as just wandering the stacks pulling down and scanning all kinds of books. On one of my trips to the library last year, I discovered “How To Teach Physics To Your Dog”. I was amused by the cutesy title, but I was hooked as soon as I started reading the book.
This book is an overview of quantum physics. Now I know that most people would rather undergo painful dental surgery than spend their free time reading a book about science, but this book deserves a chance. The author uses the literary devise of explaining physics to his dog to make the topic accessible and interesting. He makes the point that dogs (and nonscientists) have an advantage in learning quantum physics because they have fewer preconceived notions of how the world works, so they can more easily accept some of the basic concepts.
Another facet of the accessibility of this book is that is has very little math. Physics is sometimes defined as the mathematical explanation of the physical world, so how can you do physics without math? The answer is simple. Dogs can’t count, let alone calculate square roots so the author uses concrete examples using bunnies, squirrels and dog treats to illustrate concepts like particle-wave duality and quantum tunneling.
The book starts with a basic introduction to what quantum physics is, and how it differs from classical physics. From there it covers a number of topics, including Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger’s Cat. Each chapter starts with a conversation between the author and his dog Emmy about a particular topic. From there the author moves to an explanation of the topic and the experiments used to prove the theory correct.
I must admit that I cannot say I truly understand all the information presented in the book, but I read it with pleasure anyway. The material is presented in a way that the reader can get the general idea, and continue on without getting bogged down. As the complexity builds, the author gives you every opportunity to see how the ideas are interconnected with references to prior mentions (with chapter and page numbers). There is also a helpful glossary in the back of the book of many of the terms used.
One of the things that impressed me about this book is how new many of the discoveries are. Some of the research cited was done in the 1990s and early 2000s. If you ever wanted to get a glimpse at what it like to be as smart as a rocket scientist, or have any curiosity about particles and waves, give this book a try.
This book is an overview of quantum physics. Now I know that most people would rather undergo painful dental surgery than spend their free time reading a book about science, but this book deserves a chance. The author uses the literary devise of explaining physics to his dog to make the topic accessible and interesting. He makes the point that dogs (and nonscientists) have an advantage in learning quantum physics because they have fewer preconceived notions of how the world works, so they can more easily accept some of the basic concepts.
Another facet of the accessibility of this book is that is has very little math. Physics is sometimes defined as the mathematical explanation of the physical world, so how can you do physics without math? The answer is simple. Dogs can’t count, let alone calculate square roots so the author uses concrete examples using bunnies, squirrels and dog treats to illustrate concepts like particle-wave duality and quantum tunneling.
The book starts with a basic introduction to what quantum physics is, and how it differs from classical physics. From there it covers a number of topics, including Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger’s Cat. Each chapter starts with a conversation between the author and his dog Emmy about a particular topic. From there the author moves to an explanation of the topic and the experiments used to prove the theory correct.
I must admit that I cannot say I truly understand all the information presented in the book, but I read it with pleasure anyway. The material is presented in a way that the reader can get the general idea, and continue on without getting bogged down. As the complexity builds, the author gives you every opportunity to see how the ideas are interconnected with references to prior mentions (with chapter and page numbers). There is also a helpful glossary in the back of the book of many of the terms used.
One of the things that impressed me about this book is how new many of the discoveries are. Some of the research cited was done in the 1990s and early 2000s. If you ever wanted to get a glimpse at what it like to be as smart as a rocket scientist, or have any curiosity about particles and waves, give this book a try.
June 11, 2012
This book was a real struggle.
I was recommended to read this as a light hearted way to learn a little bit more about Quantum Physics and to be honest, it wasn't that bad.
The book starts off with the main character being Chad, I presume, talking to his dog about bunny rabbits and other garden animals. Each chapter starts off very light hearted and flippant, where he sets the scene and for example, gets the dog to talk to him about chasing bunny rabbits and why they always escape him when he chases.... So the dog has a great idea to split in 2 and go both ways round the tree, that way, the bunny can't escape...
Well, after that, it breaks into super heavy reading about physics and how the dog would need to go so slow that it would take him longer than the universe's existance to seperate and refract around the tree... Orzel then proceeds to write the equations and explanations for this before moving on to the next chapter.... Quantum Tunnelling or something like that....
It was heavy reading in all, whilst I relatively enjoyed it, I wouldn't read it again and by the last couple of chapters I found myself almost forcing myself to complete the read...
In summary - if you like Physics, you'll enjoy this book....
If you have a degree in physics, dont bother reading it....
If you don't like physics, but like dogs, then read the first half of each chapter.... :)
I was recommended to read this as a light hearted way to learn a little bit more about Quantum Physics and to be honest, it wasn't that bad.
The book starts off with the main character being Chad, I presume, talking to his dog about bunny rabbits and other garden animals. Each chapter starts off very light hearted and flippant, where he sets the scene and for example, gets the dog to talk to him about chasing bunny rabbits and why they always escape him when he chases.... So the dog has a great idea to split in 2 and go both ways round the tree, that way, the bunny can't escape...
Well, after that, it breaks into super heavy reading about physics and how the dog would need to go so slow that it would take him longer than the universe's existance to seperate and refract around the tree... Orzel then proceeds to write the equations and explanations for this before moving on to the next chapter.... Quantum Tunnelling or something like that....
It was heavy reading in all, whilst I relatively enjoyed it, I wouldn't read it again and by the last couple of chapters I found myself almost forcing myself to complete the read...
In summary - if you like Physics, you'll enjoy this book....
If you have a degree in physics, dont bother reading it....
If you don't like physics, but like dogs, then read the first half of each chapter.... :)
July 2, 2021
If the title was Quantum Physics: It’s Hard but You’ll Like It; if there were no dogs, bunnies, and failed attempts at witticism, I’d give it a four. Maybe even a five. Alas…
December 10, 2018
This book offers a light explanation of the basic phenomenon of quantum physics, the wave function. I was looking for such explanation (not too high level, no mathematics) and this book really hit the sweet spot. Especially the first chapters were very good, after 50% the book focussed more on the weird universe of quantum teleportation and the measurements done in quantum optics, in line with the professional interest of Chad Orzel. One could argue if the dialogs between Chad and his dog Emmy were necesary, as the writing style may be perceived as childish, but afterwards, it actually provided the comic relief in a tough subject like quantum physics. I learned quite a lot from the stories and explanation and can recommend this to anyone with a popular scientific interest in (quantum) physics. 5 stars.
May 9, 2016
Maybe a dog person would find Chad Orzel’s attempts to talk quantum mechanics in the language of a pet and her owner more endearing. How to Teach Physics to Your Dog is Yet Another Pop Sci look at quantum mechanics, albeit one from a more technical than, say, historical perspective. Orzel frames each chapter within a conversation with his dog, Emmy, grounded in the context of something a dog would do, like hunt bunnies or eat treats. Unfortunately, the writing tries too hard to be cutesy and funny. I found this device far too distracting and cheesy for my tastes, and it adds very little to Orzel’s explanations.
As far as the quantum mechanics go, the development is fairly standard. It’s hard for me to approach books like this from the eyes of a first timer, because I’ve read so many—I don’t pretend that means I know a lot about quantum mechanics, but you do start to hear the same stories over and over. We are quite fortunate to live during a renaissance in books about quantum mechanics, so really, you are spoiled for choice. I don’t think How to Teach Physics to Your Dog is going to make it onto my list of recommended physics reads, though.
Orzel’s explanations, while admirably complete, also tend towards a level of technical complexity that belies the book’s pop science label. This is, of course, always the difficult balancing act these writers face: the more you lean on analogy or sacrifice detail, the less accurate your rendition of quantum mechanics becomes—but the more you strive for accuracy, the harder it is to comprehend. The former scenario makes for better reading, but it also introduces the potential for more misconceptions. As Orzel points out in the second chapter, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is well known even in popular culture—but it is also often misinterpreted as a statement about measurement rather than a statement about reality. I liked his explanation of that, as well as his explanations of the Copenhagen interpretation versus the many worlds theory. I was less enamoured whenever he started talking about photons as waves and interference patterns … the way he was explaining it ended up confusing me and doubting my knowledge of quantum physics rather than honing it!
The last chapter is a curious kind of addendum, in which Orzel debunks some of the abuses of the word “quantum” to promote healing scams or free energy scams. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I really like it when scientists take on these kinds of claims and explain why they are bunk and should be viewed sceptically. Also, Orzel does a pretty good job with those explanations. On the other hand, the tone is somewhat different from the rest of the book, so this last chapter feels less connected to what comes before.
All in all, this is a competent work of popular science. It has some good explanations and some confusing ones. I think Orzel demands or assumes a level of comfort with math higher than one might expect from the audience that would be drawn to the book’s framing conceit. That is to say, if you’re reading this because you like physics talk involving dogs, you might not be so happy with the equations and symbols Orzel occasionally throws your way. I can totally see there being a sweet spot, though, an audience for this book both dog-happy and math-friendly—but I just don’t belong to that, and I have plenty of other physics books I still need to read.
As far as the quantum mechanics go, the development is fairly standard. It’s hard for me to approach books like this from the eyes of a first timer, because I’ve read so many—I don’t pretend that means I know a lot about quantum mechanics, but you do start to hear the same stories over and over. We are quite fortunate to live during a renaissance in books about quantum mechanics, so really, you are spoiled for choice. I don’t think How to Teach Physics to Your Dog is going to make it onto my list of recommended physics reads, though.
Orzel’s explanations, while admirably complete, also tend towards a level of technical complexity that belies the book’s pop science label. This is, of course, always the difficult balancing act these writers face: the more you lean on analogy or sacrifice detail, the less accurate your rendition of quantum mechanics becomes—but the more you strive for accuracy, the harder it is to comprehend. The former scenario makes for better reading, but it also introduces the potential for more misconceptions. As Orzel points out in the second chapter, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is well known even in popular culture—but it is also often misinterpreted as a statement about measurement rather than a statement about reality. I liked his explanation of that, as well as his explanations of the Copenhagen interpretation versus the many worlds theory. I was less enamoured whenever he started talking about photons as waves and interference patterns … the way he was explaining it ended up confusing me and doubting my knowledge of quantum physics rather than honing it!
The last chapter is a curious kind of addendum, in which Orzel debunks some of the abuses of the word “quantum” to promote healing scams or free energy scams. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I really like it when scientists take on these kinds of claims and explain why they are bunk and should be viewed sceptically. Also, Orzel does a pretty good job with those explanations. On the other hand, the tone is somewhat different from the rest of the book, so this last chapter feels less connected to what comes before.
All in all, this is a competent work of popular science. It has some good explanations and some confusing ones. I think Orzel demands or assumes a level of comfort with math higher than one might expect from the audience that would be drawn to the book’s framing conceit. That is to say, if you’re reading this because you like physics talk involving dogs, you might not be so happy with the equations and symbols Orzel occasionally throws your way. I can totally see there being a sweet spot, though, an audience for this book both dog-happy and math-friendly—but I just don’t belong to that, and I have plenty of other physics books I still need to read.
March 11, 2010
I love the concept of it and got through, oh, about 3 chapters before I was unable to hang. He'd need to be there with me and his dog and for demonstration purposes, and then I could go, "wait, wait, what?!? can you slow down a bit? Okay, so waves... like the ocean, but we can't see them, and sound behaves like waves but also refracts? shit, okay, wait, start from the beginning." Physics is var interesting, but damn, so difficult!
June 11, 2013
This is an excellent book, despite its quirky, and somewhat cringe-making, style where the author is talking to his dog - and the dog, who is already quite knowledgeable about physics, replies. In the late 1960s, I had studied quantum mechanics at university as part of a chemistry degree course so I had some prior understanding of the subject matter. I found this book both refreshed what I knew and considerably added to it.
It's far less mathematical than the book on quantum physics by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw (Brian Cox Jeff Forshaw) and, perhaps because of that, is much more enjoyable. The bizarre world of quantum physics comes across much more powerfully in Chad Orzel's book than it does in Cox and Forshaw's work, and leaves much more of an impression on the reader.
If you don't mind a talking dog, and frequent references to bunnies, then this is an excellent introduction to quantum physics.
It's far less mathematical than the book on quantum physics by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw (Brian Cox Jeff Forshaw) and, perhaps because of that, is much more enjoyable. The bizarre world of quantum physics comes across much more powerfully in Chad Orzel's book than it does in Cox and Forshaw's work, and leaves much more of an impression on the reader.
If you don't mind a talking dog, and frequent references to bunnies, then this is an excellent introduction to quantum physics.
August 10, 2010
The "teaching to your dog" gimmick is cute at first but gets kind of old eventually, even though I'm sure that Orzel's dog is, as she reports, a VERY good dog. :) The thing I really liked about this book is that Orzel actually goes into detail about how the experiments were designed that proved various aspects of quantum theory. I've never read a popular physics book that didn't just skip over that part, and it made some of the concepts a lot easier to understand.
October 30, 2019
Bueno, como libro de divulgación científica, se trata de una obra muy entretenida, y sobre todo, sencilla de entender para el más ignorante en el tema. Además, no deja de ser enternecedor el pensar que en verdad fue escrito para un Perro, eso si, ¡uno de los más brillantes del mundo!
El autor presenta algunos de los hitos de la física en forma de situaciones que hipotéticamente, le podrían de ser de utilidad en a un perro al momento de tratar de atrapar a un conejo o ardilla, recibir más premios, o de las posibilidades de encontrar más comida tirada en el piso de una cocina. Y bueno, si se supone que lo puede entender un perro, sin duda un ser humano tambien :O
Si desean una pequeña introducción acerca de los misterios del universo y como los físicos están acercándose a entenderlos y resolverlos, este libro es un excelente apoyo, no deja de ser una obra de divulgación, pero es ameno, divertido, y a ratos incluso enternecedor.
El autor presenta algunos de los hitos de la física en forma de situaciones que hipotéticamente, le podrían de ser de utilidad en a un perro al momento de tratar de atrapar a un conejo o ardilla, recibir más premios, o de las posibilidades de encontrar más comida tirada en el piso de una cocina. Y bueno, si se supone que lo puede entender un perro, sin duda un ser humano tambien :O
Si desean una pequeña introducción acerca de los misterios del universo y como los físicos están acercándose a entenderlos y resolverlos, este libro es un excelente apoyo, no deja de ser una obra de divulgación, pero es ameno, divertido, y a ratos incluso enternecedor.
August 27, 2024
Chad Orzel wrote this book in 2009. I wonder if Emmy is still alive at this point. Chances are slim, but not yet zero. Quantum physics is a complicated subject, but it is crucial to our current way of life.
Orzel explains quantum physics to his dog. He uses analogies to describe quantum effects and how they differ from our common sense understanding of the universe. Orzel chose his dog because she doesn’t have preconceived notions of how the universe works.
The book has a charming sense of humor. I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
Orzel explains quantum physics to his dog. He uses analogies to describe quantum effects and how they differ from our common sense understanding of the universe. Orzel chose his dog because she doesn’t have preconceived notions of how the universe works.
The book has a charming sense of humor. I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
September 14, 2022
A fun, well explained introduction to a fascinating topic that even people still working through their middle school physics class trauma can enjoy.
October 24, 2024
Absolutely fantastic explanation of some fascinating and complex subjects. I adored the narrative we got with Emmy, the dog, and her hatred of evil squirrels. Somehow, this all equates to brilliant explanations of quantum mechanics.
March 15, 2019
This is a perfectly cogent ultra-light introduction to quantum physics.
My only complaint is that the dog bits are entirely superfluous and slightly annoying.
My only complaint is that the dog bits are entirely superfluous and slightly annoying.
April 26, 2023
I'm not a bright man, and if I ever had any doubts this book sealed the deal. This is an Explain it Like I'm 5 (ELI5) level book on quantum physics and I was still confused. I've been exposed to this subject a thousand times and I keep bashing my head against the physics wall hoping something will sink in yet I still understand very little. This book didn't help in that regards.
The author uses the old trick that says if you can't explain a subject in such a way that a young child (or dog in this case) can understand it then you don't sufficiently understand it yourself.
This is as dumbed down as the author could make it and I didn't understand a lot of it. He must think I'm a monkey.
An interesting read although still very frustrating.
The author uses the old trick that says if you can't explain a subject in such a way that a young child (or dog in this case) can understand it then you don't sufficiently understand it yourself.
This is as dumbed down as the author could make it and I didn't understand a lot of it. He must think I'm a monkey.
An interesting read although still very frustrating.
August 6, 2016
I must be a stupid dog. The book tries to explain basic concepts of quantum physics in as layman a language as I think is possible, and I think I understand at a superficial level what some of the theories are, but I found some of the concepts difficult to grasp even after rereading many times. One thing I found disappointing was there wasn't much explanations on how it makes things like quantum computing and LED switches work. What I did like was the last chapter which exposes many of the frauds which capitalise on quantum theory to make money from the gullible.
September 18, 2014
I hate to admit it but I could not finish this book. Apparently, the author's dog is smarter than I am because, after reading about 2/3 of the book, I still understand very little about quantum physics. I think I'll stick to biology in the future.
August 15, 2015
I had a lot of fun reading this book. Cuz the science geek in me can't get enough of this stuff. This book makes some serious science concepts easier to grasp and makes me laugh (per conversations with dog).
May 25, 2020
I'm still utterly bewildered by quantum mechanics, but dang Orzel sure did try. An excellent book. He helped me understand the uncertainty principle in a way I never had before, and if I couldn't quite make the leap to its application in the subsequent chapters, well, I truly don't think the fault lies with the author. I learned a ton, even if I still find it all too slippery to fully grasp.
If you're new to the extreme weirdness that is quantum, I don't recommend you start here, though. The book is not an introduction to the ideas, but rather an attempt to explain its core concepts with some depth and specificity (albeit briefly and in lay terms). I would instead recommend Orzel to anyone who has already read a fair bit about the ideas of modern physics, and would now like to try and understand *why* reality works in such bizarre ways, and how physicists think they know the things they claim to know.
Orzel's descriptions are clear, accessible and well laid out. He includes lots of helpful diagrams and explains what each different kind of experiment can and can't prove, how and why. The dog analogies usefully repeat the info in terms compatible to the way we experience real life. They also provide a nice frame to contrast the difference between the classical and quantum worlds, and explain why effects look so different when things get big. (Not being a dog person, I thought these sections might start to grate after a while, but they were actually tremendously helpful). Overall, the tone is fun and humorous, and I enjoyed the occasional touch of snark.
Next up, m Al-Khalili's Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed. We'll see how they compare - and whether repetition and a different way of presenting the weirdness continue to nudge me along a wee bit in my attempts to comprehend the incomprehensible.
If you're new to the extreme weirdness that is quantum, I don't recommend you start here, though. The book is not an introduction to the ideas, but rather an attempt to explain its core concepts with some depth and specificity (albeit briefly and in lay terms). I would instead recommend Orzel to anyone who has already read a fair bit about the ideas of modern physics, and would now like to try and understand *why* reality works in such bizarre ways, and how physicists think they know the things they claim to know.
Orzel's descriptions are clear, accessible and well laid out. He includes lots of helpful diagrams and explains what each different kind of experiment can and can't prove, how and why. The dog analogies usefully repeat the info in terms compatible to the way we experience real life. They also provide a nice frame to contrast the difference between the classical and quantum worlds, and explain why effects look so different when things get big. (Not being a dog person, I thought these sections might start to grate after a while, but they were actually tremendously helpful). Overall, the tone is fun and humorous, and I enjoyed the occasional touch of snark.
Next up, m Al-Khalili's Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed. We'll see how they compare - and whether repetition and a different way of presenting the weirdness continue to nudge me along a wee bit in my attempts to comprehend the incomprehensible.
December 22, 2019
This book is about the author teaching quantum physics to his English speaking dog Emmy. This technique, I think, is supposed to explain quantum physics in such simple words that even a dog could understand. But does the complexity of quantum physics lie just in how it is explained? I don't think so (or probably I am less intelligent than his dog).
Anyway, this book gives a good idea about quantum physics and the phenomena associated with it. The author knows his subject very well and knows how to explain it without relying on mathematical equations. I particularly liked how he explained Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. People usually tend to explain it as an inability of measurement, which is not the only reason of uncertainty. Randomness of particles is a law of nature.
Certain other parts of this book, like explaining quantum Zeno effect and quantum teleportation, I think, could have been done in a better manner. The author was focussing too much on explaining these using dog equivalents that the details of the experiments were missing and it was simply confusing.
I would recommend this book if you have some basic knowledge about quantum physics. Otherwise I am not sure whether reading this book could be a starting point. Interactions with the dog made the reading light, but I don't think it was making it any simple.
Anyway, this book gives a good idea about quantum physics and the phenomena associated with it. The author knows his subject very well and knows how to explain it without relying on mathematical equations. I particularly liked how he explained Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. People usually tend to explain it as an inability of measurement, which is not the only reason of uncertainty. Randomness of particles is a law of nature.
Certain other parts of this book, like explaining quantum Zeno effect and quantum teleportation, I think, could have been done in a better manner. The author was focussing too much on explaining these using dog equivalents that the details of the experiments were missing and it was simply confusing.
I would recommend this book if you have some basic knowledge about quantum physics. Otherwise I am not sure whether reading this book could be a starting point. Interactions with the dog made the reading light, but I don't think it was making it any simple.
December 9, 2019
I've had to think a while before deciding on the score for this one. With a more fine-grained rating system I'd give it 3.5 stars, but given how much fun I've had while also learning new things have pushed it to 4 stars on Goodreads.
The unique concept behind the book is both its charm and the reason for me to doubt whether or not to give it a slightly lower rating. The conversations that Chad Orzel has with his "very good dog" Emmy are mostly cute and original, but the trick eventually did start to wear me down a little bit.
The real surprise for me was that the author goes deeper into the material than I anticipated. Somehow I had the expectation that this would be dumbed down a lot, but the latter half of each chapter proved to be quite informative. There is no room for actual proof or big equations in this book, but I don't think that that would have been fitting in this context.
Overall this is definitely recommended to anybody that's interested in a broad discussion of all things relation to quantum physics.
The unique concept behind the book is both its charm and the reason for me to doubt whether or not to give it a slightly lower rating. The conversations that Chad Orzel has with his "very good dog" Emmy are mostly cute and original, but the trick eventually did start to wear me down a little bit.
The real surprise for me was that the author goes deeper into the material than I anticipated. Somehow I had the expectation that this would be dumbed down a lot, but the latter half of each chapter proved to be quite informative. There is no room for actual proof or big equations in this book, but I don't think that that would have been fitting in this context.
Overall this is definitely recommended to anybody that's interested in a broad discussion of all things relation to quantum physics.
November 5, 2017
Excelente libro de divulgación científica, que explica lo más sencillo posible algunas de los aspectos más fascinantes e increíbles (literalmente increíbles) de la física cuántica. Emmy, la perrita del autor, es mucho más inteligente que Pepper, mi perro!!! :) :)
Agradecí la claridad de las explicaciones, por fin entendí que onda con el gato de Schrödinger y el principio de incertidumbre de Heisenberg... aprendí muchas otras cosas que no sabía de esta rama de la física moderna. El capítulo final, "Cuidado con las ardillas malvadas" es imprescindible!
Agradecí la claridad de las explicaciones, por fin entendí que onda con el gato de Schrödinger y el principio de incertidumbre de Heisenberg... aprendí muchas otras cosas que no sabía de esta rama de la física moderna. El capítulo final, "Cuidado con las ardillas malvadas" es imprescindible!
June 21, 2019
A complicated yet quite enjoyable book about quantum physics, it follows the interactions and dialogue of a scientist and his dog, their dialog starts the explanation on various topic and their mechanics as, for example, it is explained why the dog cant be on two places at once to cross a three and ambush a squirrel. It has a lot of complicated stuff to explain but it does so with everyday examples how explains why the physics of the very small are so weird and different from the normal everyday physics. It was an enjoyable and educational reading.
July 11, 2019
I finished it and it was really good. Accessible to the point that I actually understood big chunks with varying degrees of uncertainty (that was a quantum joke, right there). Definitely worth a go. The writing and tone were fantastic - it’s the quantum bits that were more difficult to get my head around. So 5 stars for the writing, the content, fewer by their very nature...
June 12, 2024
A good introductory book on quantum physics. Explains the concepts well and kept my interest enough to make me want to read more in-depth books. I get that the dog is the gimmick and I likely would not have read this without that title but there is too much dog based content. Some of the “real world” examples using dogs were weak. Overall very good though! Wish it was longer.
Currently reading
November 25, 2024I presently have a hard copy of this book here. I look to read and take some notes so I have a baseline for Quantum Physic info. ( I have been reading other books for a while and my knowledge is fleeting and spotty 8( ) If you have read this and published your Kindle notes to Goodreads, please let me know in the comments field , Thanks !
Displaying 1 - 30 of 301 reviews