Superb. ( )

While 'What Is Real?' is marketed as a popular science book, it should be mandatory reading for professional physicists, as it is a critical history of their field first and foremost, trying to explain why a problematic theory like the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has endured for so long.

It works both as a solid overview of the science and possible interpretations of quantum theory, and as a sociological history of the workings of the field – both from a European and American perspective. There is much to learn here: about quantum science, about science as a practice, and about philosophy of science as well.

(...)

Full review on Weighing A Pig Doesn't Fatten It ( )

Very engaging history of quantum physics. Personal backgrounds are presented but do not overshadow the issues that individuals raised and championed. The book retains its focus on the ideas. ( )

I have a little extra time these days, and I am browsing my library of unread books. These are books I heard good reviews about, and have topics that interest me. Although I can't do the math, I am fascinated by quantum physics and cosmology, so this book immediately entered my library when published. It is very good, with interesting characters and difficult arguments, and a history of the 20th century of theoretical physics.

Some quotes that I marked while reading:

Page 28: [Einstein] "He was eternally suspicious of the status quo, both scientifically and elsewhere; he characterized common sense as the collection of prejudices accumulated by the age of eighteen"

Page 29: [quoting Einstein] "On principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe."

Page 48: [quoting Wolfgang Pauli] "I do not mind if you think slowly, but I do object when you publish more quickly than you can think"

Page 123: "If a measurement only happens when someone looks at a system, who, in particular, has to look? Everett argued that this line of reasoning leads inevitably to solipsism - the idea that you are the only being in the universe, and everyone else is somehow illusory or secondary, existing in states of indeterminate reality until you, the High Arbiter of Wave Function Collapse deign to observe them"

Page 127: "These are the many worlds [entangled wave functions] of Everett’s interpretation. The may seem absurd on the face of it: there is, after all, only one world that we experience. But if that's your objection, Everett's reply is that your hardly alone: to each person in each branch of the universal wave function their world appears to be the only world, just as there appeared to be only one cat in the box and one you looking at it. This is the hallmark of the many worlds interpretation: the appearance of a single world, despite the true existence of many"

Page 148: "Particles, according to Bohm, always have positions - but those positions can be dramatically altered by small disturbances and changes in experimental setups."

Page 187: [quoting writings of J.J.C. Smart, a philosopher] "The great and compelling reason for refusing to regard the elementary particles as theoretical fictions is that unless something like what quantum mechanics tells us is true of some underlying reality, then [the fact] that the macroscopic laws are what they are ... [is] too much of a coincidence to be believed"

Page 264: "Pat answers to complex questions, like Popper's cry of "falsifiability" should always be suspicious: as H.L. Mencken once said, "There is always a well known solution to every human problem - neat, plausible and wrong." ( )

Adam Becker has obviously taken to heart the story that every equation drops the sales of a book by half (or whatever the fraction is)....because I don't think there is an equation in there. And that is no mean feat for a book written by a PhD in Astrophysics, writing (essentially) about quantum theory. Actually, I found the book a delight to read...maybe because of the lack of equations. It's written as a story. The story of the development of ideas about quantum theory and in particular the dominance of the Copenhagen theory (championed by Bohr) and all the other theories that have been put forward to either supplement it or replace it. Famously, Einstein refused to accept the Copenhagen interpretation which basically denies that there is any reality associated with the theorems. It's a "shut up and calculate" approach. The theory gives the right answers ...so who cares what it actually means in terms of the underlying reality.
I found this book fascinating on so many levels. At one level it is the story of the attempts by many scientists to peer behind the equations and understand what is "really" going on at the quantum level and at another level it is a sociological study about the way that a paradigm is backed by its supporters and they use every trick in the book to frustrate, confound and undermine any deviations from the orthodoxy ....despite clear evidence that something is not quite right with their theory. It's also an interesting historical study about the rise of Naziism in Europe and the impact that this had on physics; the development of the atomic bomb and the consequent militarisation of physics; the rise of McCarthyism and the persecution on political grounds of some physicists ...noteably David Bohm; and the narrow, specialised education of modern physicists.....divorced from philosophy.
I must say that my own education as a scientist was remote from any philosophy of science. We learned it on the job and absorbed attitudes from other scientists....but it was very much in the mode of: idea>theory> experiment test> confirmation or refutation> next idea. I remember a chemist when I was working in the Riverina who refused to accept the interpolation of data from a range of points on a graph...which made perfect sense to everybody else....including me. He argued, "How do we know that between those two points there is not a peak?". Well...in a sense he was right ..we didn't know but most of us were content to accept Occam's Razor......"don't multiply entities beyond necessity". (At least we had picked this idea up in our science courses). And I've always found that a pretty good guide in life. But I digress...my point is that in my experience scientists are not educated to think about the foundations of their knowledge and most are content to "Shut up and calculate". This even applies to the ethical consequences of what they are doing. Plant breeders have very reluctantly come to accept that there might be some ethical implications from their collections of plant materials from the lands of indigenous people and there might be some ethical (or other issues) with the use of genetically modified organisms. People were only starting to think about plant rights when I was a scientist. And some people were taking out patents. Up until then, plant breeders (in my experience anyway) tended to be totally altruistic. We, agricultural scientists, were about feeding the world... not about trying to make our fortunes. We looked askance at those who had gone "over to the other side" and were working for Dekalb or other seed companies.
In summary....scientists are not being taught philosophy ...and as Becker points out... the physicists are openly contemptuous of philosophy.....usually not realising that they are subscribing to one form of philosophy or another and often to a form that has been disproven or undermined.
Becker does a good job of demonstrating the strength of the Copenhagen interpretation and (I assume that he is correct) the force of personality of Bohm and his acolytes in both developing that and in ruthlessly undermining any others bold enough to question it...or to want to do a PhD in the foundations of quantum mechanics.
I was shocked by the treatment meted out to a number of students who pursued research that was contrary to the Copenhagen interpretation ..and, in particular, to Bohm who really (it seems) developed a viable alternative. Why do these guys have such similar names (Bohr, Bohm, Born)??
I remember the words of Bertram Russell in advising a young graduate......(I paraphrase) ...do something in the accepted paradigm to establish your reputation ....only then can you be bold enough to challenge this. Likewise Einstein commenting upon some line of his research that had come up negative. "It's important that I publish these negative results...because I have established my reputation and others could not afford the risk to their reputation....but it is important that others do not repeat the same mistakes".
Becker, I think, makes the point very well that contrary to the popular story, Einstein was not defeated in the famous Bohr- Einstein debates and the EPR thought experiment was never satisfactorily answered. And Einstein was right in insisting that the Copenhagen interpretation was incomplete.
I really learned a lot from this book. Happy to award it 5 stars. ( )