Skip to main content

Quantum Sense and Nonsense - Jean Bricmont ****

You wait years for a book on the interpretation of quantum physics, then two come along within a couple of months of each other. However, while both Quantum Sense and Nonsense and Philip Ball's Beyond Weird are aimed at a popular science audience (or popular sience as the back cover unfortunately categorises Jean Bricmont's book), they take a very line different. Without resorting to textbook levels of complexity, Quantum Sense and Nonsense goes into the quantum physics in considerably more depth, though at the cost of losing some readability.

 Although Bricmont explains various quantum bits and pieces, such as the wave function, along the way, his focus throughout is on three key issues that need to be dealt with in getting an understanding of what the theory's really doing. These are the role of the observer, whether or not there is determinism (as opposed to true randomness) and whether or not locality holds - the alternative being what Einstein referred to as 'spooky action at a distance.'

 This is also effectively a book in three acts. The first gives us background to what the problem with interpretation of quantum physics is, goes through the Copenhagen interpretation, and introduces the oddity of the two slit experiment. This is reasonably readable. There's then a centre section that fills in a lot of detail, which is harder going. Finally, there's the most approachable part in the last two chapters where Bricmont gives us a 'revised history' of quantum physics and considers its cultural impact.

 What was particularly refreshing about this book is that it's the first I've ever read for a popular audience that properly explains the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. It has to do this, as Bricmont is a relative rarity amongst physicists in being fully aware of it and supportive of it. He makes a convincing case that the interpretation was largely ignored because of Bohm's political views (he was effectively forced to leave the US for having communist leanings), and makes more sense than it is usually considered to. 

 There were a couple of examples where Bricmont seemed to verge on cherry picking to strengthen the pro-Bohm argument. He is very critical of those who try to combine quantum physics with Eastern mystical philosophy, yet plays down the fact that Bohm also did this (which was probably as much why his interpretation was ignored as his politics). More significantly, the book paints a picture of the Copenhagen interpretation in an early form where the role of the observer and measurement is very much about experiments, rather than interaction of quantum objects with the environment. If you are familiar with this aspect of quantum interpretation it seemed significant that the word 'decoherence' only appears once, and that was in a footnote.

 Although it's not always the most reader-friendly text (not helped by the author repeatedly referring to himself in the plural), I would recommend this title if you want to get a distinctly different picture of quantum physics and an understanding of why, even after 80-90 years, physicists may be happy with the results of the calculations, but still can't agree on what it all really means.

Paperback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

 
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more