Philip Ball > Quotes

“It is only rather recently that science has begun to make peace with its magical roots. Until a few decades ago, it was common for histories of science either to commence decorously with Copernicus's heliocentric theory or to laud the rationalism of Aristotelian antiquity and then to leap across the Middle Ages as an age of ignorance and superstition. One could, with care and diligence, find occasional things to praise in the works of Avicenna, William of Ockham, Albertus Magnus, and Roger Bacon, but these sparse gems had to be thoroughly dusted down and scraped clean of unsightly accretions before being inserted into the corners of a frame fashioned in a much later period.”
― Philip Ball, The Devil's Doctor: Paracelsus and the World of Renaissance Magic and Science

“No matter who you were in sixteenth-century Europe, you could be sure of two things: you would be lucky to reach fifty years of age, and you could expect a life of discomfort and pain. Old age tires the body by thirty-five, Erasmus lamented, but half the population did not live beyond the age of twenty. There were doctors and there was medicine, but there does not seem to have been a great deal of healing. Anyone who could afford to seek a doctor's aid did so eagerly, but the doctor was as likely to maim or kill as to cure. His potions were usually noxious and sometimes fatal—but they could not have been as terrible and traumatic as the contemporary surgical methods. The surgeon and the Inquisitor differed only in their motivation: otherwise, their batteries of knives, saws, and tongs for slicing, piercing, burning, and amputating were barely distinguishable. Without any anesthetic other than strong liquor, an operation was as bad as the torments of hell.”
― Philip Ball, The Devil's Doctor: Paracelsus and the World of Renaissance Magic and Science

“The world is sensitive to our touch. It has a kind of 'Zing!' that makes it fly off in ways that are not imaginable classically. The whole structure of quantum mechanics may be nothing more than the optimal method of reasoning and processing information in the light of such a fundamental (wonderful) sensitivity. — Chris Fuchs”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“Hippocrates can be justifiably regarded as the father of Western medicine, and he stands in relation to this science as Aristotle does to physics. Which is to say, he was almost entirely wrong, but he was at least systematic.”
― Philip Ball, The Devil's Doctor: Paracelsus and the World of Renaissance Magic and Science

“The combination of random branching and orderly underlying lattice creates the exquisite complexity of the snowflake, poised on the brink of chaos and minutely sensitive to tiny variations in the temperature and humidity of the air.”
― Philip Ball, Patterns in Nature: Why the Natural World Looks the Way It Does

“In quantum theory, words are blunt tools.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“The wavefunction tells us where we might potentially find an electron when we look; but what we do find in any given experiment is random, and we can’t meaningfully say why we find it here rather than there.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“[Q]uantum physics is not replaced by another sort of physics at large scales. It actually gives rise to classical physics. Our everyday, commonsense reality is, in this view, simply what quantum mechanics looks like when you’re six feet tall.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“I don’t anticipate a consensus any time soon on the question of how to define life, but it seems to me that cognition provides a much better, more apt way to talk about it than invoking more passive capabilities such as metabolism and replication. Those latter two attributes might be necessary, but they are means to an end: they’re not really what life is about.”
― Philip Ball, How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology

“The growth and maintenance of living things like us is a delicate (but also robust) dance of cause and effect, cascading up and down the hierarchy of scales in space and time. This leads to that, but then that creates a new this. It’s for this reason that life can only be understood as a dynamic process of becoming—from conception to the grave.”
― Philip Ball, How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology

“[T]he probabilistic nature of the Schrödinger equation, which predicts only the likelihood of different experimental outcomes, leaves it offering no reason why one specific outcome is observed instead of another. In effect, it says that quantum events (the radioactive decay of an atom, say) happen for no reason.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“For quantum physics is not replaced by another sort of physics at large scales. It actually gives rise to classical physics.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird: Why Everything You Thought You Knew about Quantum Physics Is Different

“For many decades quantum theory was regarded primarily as a mathematical description of phenomenal accuracy and reliability, capable of explaining the shapes and behaviours of molecules, the workings of electronic transistors, the colours of nature and the laws of optics, and a whole lot else. It would be routinely described as ‘the theory of the atomic world’: an account of what the world is like at the tiniest scales we can access with microscopes. Talking about the interpretation of quantum mechanics was, on the other hand, a parlour game suitable only for grandees in the twilight of their career, or idle discussion over a beer. Or worse: only a few decades ago, professing a serious interest in the topic could be tantamount to career suicide for a young physicist. Only a handful of scientists and philosophers, idiosyncratically if not plain crankily, insisted on caring about the answer. Many researchers would shrug or roll their eyes when the ‘meaning’ of quantum mechanics came up; some still do. ‘Ah, nobody understands it anyway!”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“Computer simulation often works fine if we assume nothing more than Newton’s laws at the atomic scale, even though we know that really we should be using quantum, not classical, mechanics at that level. But sometimes approximating the behaviour of atoms as though they were classical billiard-ball particles isn’t sufficient. We really do need to take quantum behaviour into account to accurately model chemical reactions involved in industrial catalysis or drug action, say. We can do that by solving the Schrödinger equation for the particles, but only approximately: we need to make lots of simplifications if the maths is to be tractable. But what if we had a computer that itself works by the laws of quantum mechanics? Then the sort of behaviour you’re trying to simulate is built into the very way the machine operates: it is hardwired into the fabric. This was the point Feynman made in his article. But no such machines existed. At any rate they would, as he pointed out with wry understatement, be ‘machines of a different kind’ from any computer built so far. Feynman didn’t work out the full theory of what such a machine would look like or how it would work – but he insisted that ‘if you want to make a simulation of nature, you’d better make it quantum-mechanical’.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“Einstein and his colleagues made the perfectly reasonable assumption of locality: that the properties of a particle are localized on that particle, and what happens here can’t affect what happens there without some way of transmitting the effects across the intervening space. It seems so self-evident that it hardly appears to be an assumption at all. But this locality is just what quantum entanglement undermines – which is why ‘spooky action at a distance’ is precisely the wrong way to look at it. We can’t regard particle A and particle B in the EPR experiment as separate entities, even though they are separated in space. As far as quantum mechanics is concerned, entanglement makes them both parts of a single object. Or to put it another way, the spin of particle A is not located solely on A in the way that the redness of a cricket ball is located on the cricket ball. In quantum mechanics, properties can be non-local. Only if we accept Einstein’s assumption of locality do we need to tell the story in terms of a measurement on particle A ‘influencing’ the spin of particle B. Quantum non-locality is the alternative to that view.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“[There is a] growing conviction that quantum mechanics is at root a theory not of tiny particles and waves but of information and its causative influence. It’s a theory of how much we can deduce about the world by looking at it, and how that depends on intimate, invisible connections between here and there.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“[T]he wavefunction of the electron in [a] box can penetrate into the walls. If the walls aren’t too thick, the wavefunction can actually extend right through them, so that it still has a non-zero value on the outside. What this tells you is that there is a small chance – equal to the amplitude of the wavefunction squared in that part of space – that if you make a measurement of where the electron is, you might find it within the wall, or even outside the wall.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“Decoherence is what destroys the possibility of observing macroscopic superpositions – including Schrödinger’s live/dead cat. And this has nothing to do with observation in the normal sense: we don’t need a conscious mind to ‘look’ in order to ‘collapse the wavefunction’. All we need is for the environment to disperse the quantum coherence. This happens with extraordinary efficiency – it’s probably the most efficient process known to science. And it is very clear why size matters here: there is simply more interaction with the environment, and therefore faster decoherence, for larger objects.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“Wavefunction collapse is a generator of knowledge: it is not so much a process that gives us the answers, but is the process by which answers are created. The outcome of that process can’t, in general, be predicted with certainty, but quantum mechanics gives us a method for calculating the probabilities of particular outcomes. That’s all we can ask for.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“Guan Zhong explains (as the fourth-century-BC Guanzi attests) that management of water is the key to maintaining social order. There are ‘five harmful influences’ in nature, he says, including drought and pestilence – but floods are the worst. Uncontrolled water has a symbolic as well as a pragmatic impact: it leads to the breakdown of filial piety and disintegration of social relations.”
― Philip Ball, The Water Kingdom

“Quantum theory had the strangest genesis,” Ball says. “Its pioneers made it up as they went along. What else could they do?”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“Everything that seems strange about quantum mechanics comes down to measurement. If we take a look, the quantum system behaves one way. If we don’t, the system does something else. What’s more, different ways of looking can elicit apparently mutually contradictory answers. If we look at a system one way, we see this; but if we look at the same system another way, we see not merely that but not this. The object went through one slit; no, it went through both. How can that be? How can ‘the way nature behaves’ depend on how – or if – we choose to observe it?”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“[Q]uantum objects present us with a choice of languages, but it’s too easily forgotten that this is precisely what it is: a struggle to formulate the right words, not a description of the reality behind them. Quantum objects are not sometimes particles and sometimes waves, like a football fan changing her team allegiance according to last week’s results. Quantum objects are what they are, and we have no reason to suppose that ‘what they are’ changes in any meaningful way depending on how we try to look at them. Rather, all we can say is that what we measure sometimes looks like what we would expect to see if we were measuring discrete little ball-like entities, while in other experiments it looks like the behaviour expected of waves of the same kind as those of sound travelling in air, or that wrinkle and swell on the sea surface. So the phrase ‘wave–particle duality’ doesn’t really refer to quantum objects at all, but to the interpretation of experiments – which is to say, to our human-scale view of things.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“[A]tomic nuclei are pretty hard to peer into. But that’s not the root of the problem. It’s that we simply can’t, for quantum processes, talk about a historical progression of events that led to a given outcome. There’s no story of how it ‘got’ to be that way.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“The wavefunction of superposed states doesn’t say anything about what the photon is ‘like’. It is a tool for letting you predict what you will measure. And what you will measure for a superposed state like this is that sometimes the measurement device registers a photon with a vertical polarization, and sometimes with a horizontal one. If the superposed state is described by a wavefunction that has an equal weighting of the vertical and horizontal wavefunctions, then 50% of your measurements will give the result ‘vertical’ and 50% will indicate ‘horizontal’. If you accept Bohr’s rigour/complacency (delete to taste), we don’t need to worry what the superposed state ‘is’ before making a measurement, but can just accept that such a state will sometimes give us one result and sometimes another, with a probability defined by the weightings of the superposed wavefunctions in the Schrödinger equation. It all adds up to a consistent picture.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“When it’s said that quantum mechanics is ‘weird’, or that nobody understands it, the image tends to invite the analogy of a peculiar person whose behaviour and motives defy obvious explanation. But this is too glib. It’s not so much understanding or even intuition that quantum mechanics defies, but our sense of logic itself. Sure, it’s hard to intuit what it means for objects to travel along two paths at once, or to have their properties partly situated some place other than the object itself, and so on. But these are just attempts to express in everyday words a state of affairs that defeats the capabilities of language. Our language is designed to reflect the logic we’re familiar with, but that logic won’t work for quantum mechanics.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird

“The laws of physics apply to everything equally, to stars as well as flowers. Botany and astronomy are separate sciences, but if they are somehow fundamentally inconsistent then there is something wrong with our theories. The need for such an all-encompassing vision was not really felt in the Classical past. Aristotle wrote very widely and was happy enough to draw analogies between disparate phenomena, but he was conspicuously silent on some topics (such as what we would now call chemistry) and gives little impression of the need for congruence and continuity. For encyclopedists such as Pliny, "local" explanations for things were often enough: phenomena are explained largely in terms of themselves, not in terms of other things. Where do the four humors, the bodily fluids that were thought to govern health, come from? Neither Galen nor Hippocrates, the two preeminent physicians of antiquity, tell us; they assume that it is just how things are.”
― Philip Ball, The Devil's Doctor: Paracelsus and the World of Renaissance Magic and Science

“A so-called antimony war had been waged between French [Galenist] physicians and [alchemical, Paracelsian] iatrochemists since the beginning of the seventeenth century. What it lacked in bloodletting, this war made up for in bile.”
― Philip Ball, The Devil's Doctor: Paracelsus and the World of Renaissance Magic and Science

“water is so protean a medium that it can be made to fit any purpose.”
― Philip Ball, The Water Kingdom

“We know that measurements of a quantum system seem to collapse the wavefunction. We most certainly don’t know how, or why, or indeed if that actually happens.”
― Philip Ball, Beyond Weird