The design and UX isn't done, Rob and Abbie, okkurrrr! đ
Reviews
Beyond Weird: Why Everything You Thought You Knew about Quantum Physics Is Different by Philip Ball
paulataua's review against another edition
4.0
âBeyond Weirdâ is a popular introduction to Quantum Mechanics that is fairly accessible. It covers, among other things, uncertainty, entanglement, superposition, non- locality, measurement, and contextuality. It also explores the major different interpretations and the issues presently being discussed in the field. The whole thing is presented in broad strokes, which actually suited the lacking in a science background me down to the ground. Worth reading if you are interested in the subject.
jeffspurlock's review against another edition
4.0
Overall, I thought it was great, and did a great job of illustrating what we can and cannot know about quantum systems via the schroedinger equation, and a means of thinking about why we can and cannot know these things. Also, one of the best explanations of quantum decoherence I've ever read. Ball makes it very clear where and why classical behavior emerges from quantum systems in a way that I have previously never been able to grasp as clearly. I knocked off one star because late in the book Ball makes a valiant effort to strike down the Everettians, and while I don't disagree with him, I don't think he did a good enough job making the case. I wasn't convinced by his argument, and I'm not even an ardent Everettian.
heydebigale's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.75
Overall, I thought this book did a decent job describing some of the main concepts of quantum mechanics to a general audience.
I especially appreciated the discussion about the disconnect between the language we have available, language that was developed for trading of goods, and describing the macroscopic world around us⊠breaks down when trying to describe the principles of quantum mechanics.Â
âIn quantum mechanics, the concepts defy the language we have to describe them.â
I also thought there were some nice analogies in this book that I hadnât read or heard beforeâparticularly the order of adding milk and tea yielding different results.Â
I wasnât sure about Ballâs discussion about quantum mechanics being a theory about information. Ball wrote about quantum mechanics as if it is a empirical formula, but the Schrödinger equation can be broken down into first principles. At least specifically for the hydrogen atom.
The book primarily focused on the controversy around the Copenhagen interpretation⊠I was hoping to read more about applications of quantum mechanics.
One major issue I had was the glorification of known abuser Richard Feynman. Like I get it, he won the Nobel prize for this contributions to the field of quantum mechanics. But I just donât really want to read about his âgeniusâ without some critical reflection of the horrible person he was.Â
I also really disliked his whole passage about the old axiom of not being an expert unless youâre able to explain quantum mechanics to your grandmother. Like yeah, Ball said it was outdated, but maybe donât mention it at all? It made me roll my eyes.Â
This book is a pretty accessible description of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. But, YMMV with the way certain principles were framed.
I especially appreciated the discussion about the disconnect between the language we have available, language that was developed for trading of goods, and describing the macroscopic world around us⊠breaks down when trying to describe the principles of quantum mechanics.Â
âIn quantum mechanics, the concepts defy the language we have to describe them.â
I also thought there were some nice analogies in this book that I hadnât read or heard beforeâparticularly the order of adding milk and tea yielding different results.Â
I wasnât sure about Ballâs discussion about quantum mechanics being a theory about information. Ball wrote about quantum mechanics as if it is a empirical formula, but the Schrödinger equation can be broken down into first principles. At least specifically for the hydrogen atom.
The book primarily focused on the controversy around the Copenhagen interpretation⊠I was hoping to read more about applications of quantum mechanics.
One major issue I had was the glorification of known abuser Richard Feynman. Like I get it, he won the Nobel prize for this contributions to the field of quantum mechanics. But I just donât really want to read about his âgeniusâ without some critical reflection of the horrible person he was.Â
I also really disliked his whole passage about the old axiom of not being an expert unless youâre able to explain quantum mechanics to your grandmother. Like yeah, Ball said it was outdated, but maybe donât mention it at all? It made me roll my eyes.Â
This book is a pretty accessible description of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. But, YMMV with the way certain principles were framed.
gothwin's review against another edition
5.0
I was a bit hesitant about reading this book initially as I thought who needs yet another popular science book about quantum mechanics or the history of quantum mechanics. I decided to pick up a copy as Jim Al-Khalili gave it a glowing review.
The good news is that this isn't just another history of quantum mechanics, but a great up to date account of where quantum theory is today. There is a lot of focus on the interpretation of QM from Many Worlds, Copenhagen Interpretation etc. through to modern ideas around quantum information and quantum computing.
This is a really interesting read, but it isn't necessarily an easy read (coming from someone who did two quantum mechanics courses at degree level and two quantum field theory courses at masters level). It should appeal to mathematicians and physicists, but I would recommend the layperson reads the excellent [b: In Search of Schrodingers Cat|513367|In Search of Schrödinger's Cat Quantum Physics and Reality|John Gribbin|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1440464162s/513367.jpg|96418] first.
The good news is that this isn't just another history of quantum mechanics, but a great up to date account of where quantum theory is today. There is a lot of focus on the interpretation of QM from Many Worlds, Copenhagen Interpretation etc. through to modern ideas around quantum information and quantum computing.
This is a really interesting read, but it isn't necessarily an easy read (coming from someone who did two quantum mechanics courses at degree level and two quantum field theory courses at masters level). It should appeal to mathematicians and physicists, but I would recommend the layperson reads the excellent [b: In Search of Schrodingers Cat|513367|In Search of Schrödinger's Cat Quantum Physics and Reality|John Gribbin|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1440464162s/513367.jpg|96418] first.
slimikin's review against another edition
4.0
This is, I think, the book on quantum mechanics I've been wanting to read for 15 yearsâthough my ability to embrace it may be due to my experience with the less-comprehensive titles I've read in the meantime. Superb, even if I did get snarled once or twice in Ball's explanations of experiments.
Interesting, though, how many shades of Kant and Wittgenstein I kept encountering. I'm not sure if that's because they've greatly influenced quantum physicists, Ball, or if I just saw them because I love them so much (in true what-I-measure-affects-what-I-see quantum style).
I also had the thought whilst reading that instead of us measuring the universe, perhaps the universe is measuring us...and trying all the time to tell us what it sees in ways we can comprehend.
Interesting, though, how many shades of Kant and Wittgenstein I kept encountering. I'm not sure if that's because they've greatly influenced quantum physicists, Ball, or if I just saw them because I love them so much (in true what-I-measure-affects-what-I-see quantum style).
I also had the thought whilst reading that instead of us measuring the universe, perhaps the universe is measuring us...and trying all the time to tell us what it sees in ways we can comprehend.
ybm's review against another edition
5.0
As someone with basically no science background, I understood probably about 20% of this book, but somehow still found it to be fascinating and thought provoking. If you're mathematically inept like me, Ball somehow manages to keep the math to the minimum and the difficult stuff interesting enough to want to make you figure it out.
A really engaging, if also challenging (albeit pleasantly so) introduction into quantum physics that I'm looking forward to diving in again once I find a better grasp of basic physics.
A really engaging, if also challenging (albeit pleasantly so) introduction into quantum physics that I'm looking forward to diving in again once I find a better grasp of basic physics.
blackoxford's review against another edition
5.0
The Fault, Dear Brutus, Is Not in Our Stars
Quantum theory is probably the best possible proof of the validity of Pragmatist philosophy. No one understands what the theory means. And as Philip Ball says, âNo one tells you that it often lacks any justification beyond the mere (and obviously important) fact that it works.â And this has a startling implication: Itâs not just the physical world that is different from what we thought; reason itself must be something much more obscure than we have ever conceived. Both the scientific route to quantum theory and the meaning of that theory contradict our most dearly held principles of correct thinking, or for that matter our most deeply engrained image of ourselves.
Ball takes an intriguing perspective. Most commentators on quantum physics, possibly most scientists, consider its contradictions - entanglement, wave/particle ambiguity, simultaneous existence and non-existence, etc. - as indications that the theory is incomplete, that some further theoretical breakthrough will resolve these contradictions and make it more rational. Ball doesnât do that. Suppose, he suggests, âthe apparent oddness, the paradoxes and puzzles of quantum mechanics, are real.â What we are then confronted with is a challenge to think differently because the world demands that we do so.
If reality is as quantum physics says it is, we donât need a better physics, we need to reconsider what we mean when we use words like âreasonableâ, and ârationalâ, and âlogicalâ, and even âknowingâ. If reality is as quantum physics says it is, we need to re-learn what it means to learn - not just about physics but about everything. If reality is as quantum physics says it is, the real issue isnât about matter and energy but about mind. We may know far less than we thought we knew about what constitutes this dominant human capacity for making sense of the world because what it means to make sense doesnât anymore. Quantum physics âcalls into question the meanings and limits of space and time, cause and effect, and knowledge itself.â
Ballâs thesis is that quantum theory isnât even about physics, itâs about information: âWe now realise that quantum mechanics is less about particles and waves, uncertainty and fuzziness, than a theory about information: about what can be known and how.â In other words quantum theory is the key to an entirely new epistemology, an unexpected kind of âknowabilityâ. As a species, we have stumbled across something more fundamental than another tool for exploiting the universe. We may, instead, have an impetus (or at least invitation) for beginning to investigate and understand ourselves in a new way.
This is clearly exciting stuff. When Ball points out that quantum theory âis not so much a theory that one can test by observation and measurement, but a theory about what it means to observe and measure,â he is implying that it is a theory of being human, a cosmic anthropology perhaps. After all, isnât that what we spend most of our lives as human beings doing? Observing, comparatively assessing, and judging everything? If quantum theory is a theory of those things, it is a theory of us. It is certainly not a fully worked out theory but it does give a clear direction which is rather different than any other ever proposed.
For example, a central issue of quantum theory is measurement. Essentially, measurement is not a neutral act; it changes the character of the thing measured in some annoying ways. There is no such thing as âunobtrusive measurementâ in quantum physics. This challenges the idea of measurement as something which observes and comparatively assesses the properties of an object. The results of experimentation show that this is not the case. Measurement is not the assessment of the inherent properties of an object, it is the assignment of an object as a property of a scale of measurement, a metric.* This is the case as much in the âmacroâ world we inhabit as it is in that of atomic particles. We just havenât needed to recognise the fact.
So, this is a revelation of quantum physics: there are no inherent properties. âPropertiesâ are not inherent in anything. They are essentially scales on which we assign a place to events, objects, or relationships. As it turns out, sometimes the scales are incompatible with each other. Nothing to do with the object; everything to do with the scales. There is absolutely nothing âobjectiveâ about these scales; they are chosen for some reason, some human reason, that has nothing to do with the phenomenon in question. These scales are not merely the basis for further judgment, they are themselves a judgment about whatâs important in the world. That is, they are always subjective in the sense that they have a personal import to the one who chooses them.
The âmeaningâ of quantum uncertainty, therefore, is fundamentally aesthetical and ethical, even in scientific research. The choice of a metric always means the rejection of other metrics. And the positive choice is not nearly so significant as the exclusion of the myriad of other possible metrics which could have been used to assess a phenomenon. The choice even at the quantum level is not binary - position vs. momentum - it is so for any number of so-called conjugate variables; and any choice means that an infinite number of other things will not be âobserved,â that is assigned a place on alternative metrics. This is one interpretation of the process of âreplicationâ of quantum events. The âimprintâ of the event is what is left on the metric; and if it is left 0n one it cannot be left on another. The event is quite literally a property of the metric which âabsorbsâ information making it unavailable as a property of another metric.
These musings on measurement are mine not Ballâs; but I think they conform with the spirit of his analysis of quantum theory: âRather than insisting on its difficulty, we might better regard it as a beguiling, maddening, even amusing gauntlet thrown down to challenge the imagination. For that is indeed what is challenged.â I imagine a logic which has yet to be articulated, specifically a logic of permissible choices of criteria of judgment. Such a logic would be both aesthetic and moral. It would also explicitly acknowledge that it is inevitable that we project our aesthetic and moral selves upon the world (as we do with the idea of a wave function - actually instructions for how to measure - which then allows the calculation of all sorts of âpropertiesâ which are derived from these instructions). Perhaps most important is the recognition in this logic that we have a choice, and therefore a responsibility, about what we project. If we donât know why we make certain choices, then we have a duty to find out.
The applicability of such a logic is of course not confined to measurement. Measurement is one activity in the more general realm of language (which in turn is a component of information, that are all elements, perhaps the only elements, of mind). This suggests that there might be an aesthetic/moral logic of language that overrides categories like vocabulary, grammar, and pragmatics. Perhaps that is what literature is meant to do - uncover the hidden quantum logic of language one story at a time. And that logic exists, if it does at all, in mind not matter. Or if that way of expressing it is prejudicial, perhaps it would be better to say that it exists in matter as incipient mind. Matter merely awaits its turn at mind... and vice-versa. Meanwhile mind tells stories about matter, and there is nothing to compare these stories with... except other stories. Matter, of course, remains mute on the subject and just lurks, biding its time.
*See for further discussion: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2250383138
Quantum theory is probably the best possible proof of the validity of Pragmatist philosophy. No one understands what the theory means. And as Philip Ball says, âNo one tells you that it often lacks any justification beyond the mere (and obviously important) fact that it works.â And this has a startling implication: Itâs not just the physical world that is different from what we thought; reason itself must be something much more obscure than we have ever conceived. Both the scientific route to quantum theory and the meaning of that theory contradict our most dearly held principles of correct thinking, or for that matter our most deeply engrained image of ourselves.
Ball takes an intriguing perspective. Most commentators on quantum physics, possibly most scientists, consider its contradictions - entanglement, wave/particle ambiguity, simultaneous existence and non-existence, etc. - as indications that the theory is incomplete, that some further theoretical breakthrough will resolve these contradictions and make it more rational. Ball doesnât do that. Suppose, he suggests, âthe apparent oddness, the paradoxes and puzzles of quantum mechanics, are real.â What we are then confronted with is a challenge to think differently because the world demands that we do so.
If reality is as quantum physics says it is, we donât need a better physics, we need to reconsider what we mean when we use words like âreasonableâ, and ârationalâ, and âlogicalâ, and even âknowingâ. If reality is as quantum physics says it is, we need to re-learn what it means to learn - not just about physics but about everything. If reality is as quantum physics says it is, the real issue isnât about matter and energy but about mind. We may know far less than we thought we knew about what constitutes this dominant human capacity for making sense of the world because what it means to make sense doesnât anymore. Quantum physics âcalls into question the meanings and limits of space and time, cause and effect, and knowledge itself.â
Ballâs thesis is that quantum theory isnât even about physics, itâs about information: âWe now realise that quantum mechanics is less about particles and waves, uncertainty and fuzziness, than a theory about information: about what can be known and how.â In other words quantum theory is the key to an entirely new epistemology, an unexpected kind of âknowabilityâ. As a species, we have stumbled across something more fundamental than another tool for exploiting the universe. We may, instead, have an impetus (or at least invitation) for beginning to investigate and understand ourselves in a new way.
This is clearly exciting stuff. When Ball points out that quantum theory âis not so much a theory that one can test by observation and measurement, but a theory about what it means to observe and measure,â he is implying that it is a theory of being human, a cosmic anthropology perhaps. After all, isnât that what we spend most of our lives as human beings doing? Observing, comparatively assessing, and judging everything? If quantum theory is a theory of those things, it is a theory of us. It is certainly not a fully worked out theory but it does give a clear direction which is rather different than any other ever proposed.
For example, a central issue of quantum theory is measurement. Essentially, measurement is not a neutral act; it changes the character of the thing measured in some annoying ways. There is no such thing as âunobtrusive measurementâ in quantum physics. This challenges the idea of measurement as something which observes and comparatively assesses the properties of an object. The results of experimentation show that this is not the case. Measurement is not the assessment of the inherent properties of an object, it is the assignment of an object as a property of a scale of measurement, a metric.* This is the case as much in the âmacroâ world we inhabit as it is in that of atomic particles. We just havenât needed to recognise the fact.
So, this is a revelation of quantum physics: there are no inherent properties. âPropertiesâ are not inherent in anything. They are essentially scales on which we assign a place to events, objects, or relationships. As it turns out, sometimes the scales are incompatible with each other. Nothing to do with the object; everything to do with the scales. There is absolutely nothing âobjectiveâ about these scales; they are chosen for some reason, some human reason, that has nothing to do with the phenomenon in question. These scales are not merely the basis for further judgment, they are themselves a judgment about whatâs important in the world. That is, they are always subjective in the sense that they have a personal import to the one who chooses them.
The âmeaningâ of quantum uncertainty, therefore, is fundamentally aesthetical and ethical, even in scientific research. The choice of a metric always means the rejection of other metrics. And the positive choice is not nearly so significant as the exclusion of the myriad of other possible metrics which could have been used to assess a phenomenon. The choice even at the quantum level is not binary - position vs. momentum - it is so for any number of so-called conjugate variables; and any choice means that an infinite number of other things will not be âobserved,â that is assigned a place on alternative metrics. This is one interpretation of the process of âreplicationâ of quantum events. The âimprintâ of the event is what is left on the metric; and if it is left 0n one it cannot be left on another. The event is quite literally a property of the metric which âabsorbsâ information making it unavailable as a property of another metric.
These musings on measurement are mine not Ballâs; but I think they conform with the spirit of his analysis of quantum theory: âRather than insisting on its difficulty, we might better regard it as a beguiling, maddening, even amusing gauntlet thrown down to challenge the imagination. For that is indeed what is challenged.â I imagine a logic which has yet to be articulated, specifically a logic of permissible choices of criteria of judgment. Such a logic would be both aesthetic and moral. It would also explicitly acknowledge that it is inevitable that we project our aesthetic and moral selves upon the world (as we do with the idea of a wave function - actually instructions for how to measure - which then allows the calculation of all sorts of âpropertiesâ which are derived from these instructions). Perhaps most important is the recognition in this logic that we have a choice, and therefore a responsibility, about what we project. If we donât know why we make certain choices, then we have a duty to find out.
The applicability of such a logic is of course not confined to measurement. Measurement is one activity in the more general realm of language (which in turn is a component of information, that are all elements, perhaps the only elements, of mind). This suggests that there might be an aesthetic/moral logic of language that overrides categories like vocabulary, grammar, and pragmatics. Perhaps that is what literature is meant to do - uncover the hidden quantum logic of language one story at a time. And that logic exists, if it does at all, in mind not matter. Or if that way of expressing it is prejudicial, perhaps it would be better to say that it exists in matter as incipient mind. Matter merely awaits its turn at mind... and vice-versa. Meanwhile mind tells stories about matter, and there is nothing to compare these stories with... except other stories. Matter, of course, remains mute on the subject and just lurks, biding its time.
*See for further discussion: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2250383138
misneach's review against another edition
4.0
3.5
It was so hard to focus my attention on this most of the time. I don't know why, but reading this one made me want to start reading anything but this, and it's obvious from all the books I started reading after I started this one.
However, there were points I really liked (the parts dedicated to decoherence and the MWI)
I'll have to read it again sometime in the future and see if it goes any differently.
It was so hard to focus my attention on this most of the time. I don't know why, but reading this one made me want to start reading anything but this, and it's obvious from all the books I started reading after I started this one.
However, there were points I really liked (the parts dedicated to decoherence and the MWI)
I'll have to read it again sometime in the future and see if it goes any differently.
ederwin's review
5.0
For years there was very little published comparing different interpretations of QM. Suddenly there seems to be a flood of them. While I loved [b:What Is Real?|35604796|What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics|Adam Becker|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1500753932s/35604796.jpg|57042385] by [a:Adam Becker|17128971|Adam Becker|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1520309180p2/17128971.jpg], this one might be even better. Becker was re-telling the history of QM and discussing the personalities of the scientists along with talking about interpretations. Ball skips almost completely over the history and personalities and just gets right down to what we currently know and several attempts at interpretation.
Becker was more friendly to the Many Worlds Interpretation(s) which Ball pretty much considers logically inconsistent. (I share his sentiment, but don't fully follow the argument.) Ball gives much more detail on how "decoherence" could maybe avoid the "measurement problem". And Ball talks about recent ideas on whether "super-quantum entanglement" and "PR boxes" can exist and if not, why not. I'd only met that concept before in a "graphic novel" type book: [b:Totally Random|36642373|Totally Random Why Nobody Understands Quantum Mechanics (A Serious Comic on Entanglement)|Tanya Bub|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1511369008s/36642373.jpg|58411030].
I'm going to have to read this again later to really get my head around it.
There are a few things I hate about this book. The title is horrible and the subtitle is worse. No table of contents. No chapter numbers. End notes are not numbered or linked easily to the page they are commenting on. But despite all that, this is excellent!
Becker was more friendly to the Many Worlds Interpretation(s) which Ball pretty much considers logically inconsistent. (I share his sentiment, but don't fully follow the argument.) Ball gives much more detail on how "decoherence" could maybe avoid the "measurement problem". And Ball talks about recent ideas on whether "super-quantum entanglement" and "PR boxes" can exist and if not, why not. I'd only met that concept before in a "graphic novel" type book: [b:Totally Random|36642373|Totally Random Why Nobody Understands Quantum Mechanics (A Serious Comic on Entanglement)|Tanya Bub|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1511369008s/36642373.jpg|58411030].
I'm going to have to read this again later to really get my head around it.
There are a few things I hate about this book. The title is horrible and the subtitle is worse. No table of contents. No chapter numbers. End notes are not numbered or linked easily to the page they are commenting on. But despite all that, this is excellent!
More...