What do you think?
Rate this book
QUANTUM STORY:HISTORY IN 40 MOMENTS
The twentieth century was defined by physics. From the minds of the world's leading physicists there flowed a river of ideas that would transport mankind to the pinnacle of wonderment and to the very depths of human despair. This was a century that began with the certainties of absolute knowledge and ended with the knowledge of absolute uncertainty. It was a century in which physicists developed weapons with the capacity to destroy our reality, whilst at the same time denying us the possibility that we can ever properly comprehend it.
Almost everything we think we know about the nature of our world comes from one theory of physics. This theory was discovered and refined in the first thirty years of the twentieth century and went on to become quite simply the most successful theory of physics ever devised. Its concepts underpin much of the twenty-first century technology that we have learned to take for granted. But its success has come at a price, for it has at the same time completely undermined our ability to make sense of the world at the level of its most fundamental constituents.
Rejecting the fundamental elements of uncertainty and chance implied by quantum theory, Albert Einstein once famously declared that 'God does not play dice'. Niels Bohr claimed that anybody who is not shocked by the theory has not understood it. The charismatic American physicist Richard Feynman went he claimed that nobody understands it.
This is quantum theory, and this book tells its story.
Jim Baggott presents a celebration of this wonderful yet wholly disconcerting theory, with a history told in forty episodes -- significant moments of truth or turning points in the theory's development. From its birth in the porcelain furnaces used to study black body radiation in 1900, to the promise of stimulating new quantum phenomena to be revealed by CERN's Large Hadron Collider over a hundred years later, this is the extraordinary story of the quantum world.
Oxford Landmark Science books are 'must-read' classics of modern science writing which have crystallized big ideas, and shaped the way we think.
Almost everything we think we know about the nature of our world comes from one theory of physics. This theory was discovered and refined in the first thirty years of the twentieth century and went on to become quite simply the most successful theory of physics ever devised. Its concepts underpin much of the twenty-first century technology that we have learned to take for granted. But its success has come at a price, for it has at the same time completely undermined our ability to make sense of the world at the level of its most fundamental constituents.
Rejecting the fundamental elements of uncertainty and chance implied by quantum theory, Albert Einstein once famously declared that 'God does not play dice'. Niels Bohr claimed that anybody who is not shocked by the theory has not understood it. The charismatic American physicist Richard Feynman went he claimed that nobody understands it.
This is quantum theory, and this book tells its story.
Jim Baggott presents a celebration of this wonderful yet wholly disconcerting theory, with a history told in forty episodes -- significant moments of truth or turning points in the theory's development. From its birth in the porcelain furnaces used to study black body radiation in 1900, to the promise of stimulating new quantum phenomena to be revealed by CERN's Large Hadron Collider over a hundred years later, this is the extraordinary story of the quantum world.
Oxford Landmark Science books are 'must-read' classics of modern science writing which have crystallized big ideas, and shaped the way we think.
492 pages, Hardcover
First published February 24, 2011
205 people are currently reading
1445 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews
July 12, 2011
The audience for this book might be the second or third year physics student. The book's detail obscures the story for those who need an introduction.
This book begins by describing rival theories of physics in the early 1900s between the atomists and those who saw a continuous and harmonious flow of energy in the cosmos. The rest of the book is a blow-by-blow account of how quantum physics has brought these two theories closer together. Toward the end of the book, the author writes about "closed loops of force" that form a lattice, resulting in intersecting loops that stitch "together the very fabric of the universe." This sort of observation stimulates interest but, unfortunately, Baggott doesn't 'dumb it down' for the novitiate. With this book I had hoped for a story but got a detailed, technically-oriented account instead.
This book begins by describing rival theories of physics in the early 1900s between the atomists and those who saw a continuous and harmonious flow of energy in the cosmos. The rest of the book is a blow-by-blow account of how quantum physics has brought these two theories closer together. Toward the end of the book, the author writes about "closed loops of force" that form a lattice, resulting in intersecting loops that stitch "together the very fabric of the universe." This sort of observation stimulates interest but, unfortunately, Baggott doesn't 'dumb it down' for the novitiate. With this book I had hoped for a story but got a detailed, technically-oriented account instead.
September 8, 2019
It’s hard to believe that an author can provide such interesting commentary on a subject which so many people consider difficult, but that’s what Jim Baggott does in The Quantum Story. Can’t slog through the conference notes of the debate between Bohrs and Heisenberg with Einstein and Schrodinger? Baggott does it for you, putting Einstein’s “dice-playing” comment in the context it deserves. Only aware of the term, “uncertainty principle,” but not its context? This is your source for an explanation. Only have the vaguest sense of the significance of the two-slit experiment (and related gedankenexperiments, thought experiments)? Baggott walks you through the evolution of the body of knowledge surrounding this study.
Not being a student of science myself (okay, make that “being a lazy student throughout my undergraduate years and not majoring in a scientific subject”), I hadn’t realized of the resistance certain famous physicists had to the initial suggestions of quantum theory. I was particularly intrigued by Prince Louis De Broglie’s correlation of quantum behavior with musical notes built on wave behavior (pp. 38-39) and the general categorization of his work as “la Comedie Francais” (p. 41). It never registered to me that Neils Bohr was as adamant as when he wrote: “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description.” (quoted on p. 110) In considering the ongoing debate, I realized that my personal position was more in line with Peirce’s “pragmatism” (“what we know is not limited by what we can see, but by what we can do” – also p. 110) than with the “positivism” inherent in science since the time of Auguste Comte (“what we know is limited by what we observe” – also p. 110).
Even prior to reading the book, I was aware of quantum theory’s recognition that observation impacts the reality observed. This is touched on several times in the volume, including Bohr’s insistence that quantum mechanics had to be based on observation without interference (p. 120) and Bohr’s response to Einstein’s photon box thought-experiment (which involved the theoretical idea of being able to use a clock mechanism to open a shutter in the box at a specific time and then, reweighing the box after the proton escaped) where he used Einstein’s general theory of relativity against his experiment. He said, “The very act of weighing a clock effectively changes the way it keeps time.” (p. 138)
I was also unaware of how long these concepts were speculated upon, proposed, and accepted or abandoned prior to experimental evidence. Of course, in the 1960s, things began to change. The names of particles (observed and speculated upon) had proliferated so much that Fermi (for whom the nuclear research facility in Chicago is named) was asked if he could identify all of them. He answered, “Young man, if I could remember the names of all these particles, I would have been a botanist.” (p. 214) I hadn’t realized that Schrodinger’s “cat” was originally a “tongue-in-cheek” thought experiment aimed at quantum physicists (p. 156). Another surprise was realizing that the original “quork” was changed to “quark” as a result of a line from Finnegan’s Wake (p. 222, “Three quarks for Muster Mark! / Sure he hasn’t go much of a bark. / And sure any he has it’s all beside the mark.”)
Of course, I was intrigued to note that politics and competition played an important role in certain quantum discoveries. For example, researchers at SPEAR (Stanford Positron Electron Asymmetric Rings) heard a rumor that hadron/kaon events took place more rapidly around 3.1 GeV, so they wanted to run further tests right around that measurement. Since the accelerator was now capable of pushing 5 GeV, this seemed like an inopportune time to take a step back on the basis of a rumor (p. 271). When they discovered the creation of many such events at 100x baseline, they proceeded to name the newly discovered event the “psi” particle. Brookhaven Laboratory, the ones who originally discovered the preponderance of events at 3.1 GeV and hadn’t wanted to risk publishing as yet, had called it the “J” particle. After both labs published their results, the particle was eventually known as the “J/psi” particle (p. 274).
And if I ever doubted the efficacy of abstraction, I was corrected by noting the impact of converting quantum numbers into “colors” for advancing the model (p. 259). The physicists still had to go back to the math, but the abstraction showed them what they should really be seeking. The real key, which would become more decisive at later points was the strong force keeping particles from experiencing real separation despite “asymptotic freedom” (pp. 261-262). It appears that even quantum theories conform to the rule of three as the so-called “Standard Model” recognized three (3) types of neutrinos balanced by three (3) particle generations (p. 288) along with three (3) angles in the CKM (Cabibbo, Kobayashi, and Maskawa) matrix (p. 289). Later, string theory would be applied to a concept presented by Calabi in 1957 and Shing-tung Yau in 1978. They posited that, for each of the three physical dimensions in which we work, there are six Calabi-Yau shapes. These, in turn, produce three (3) families of vibrational patterns (p. 389).
I was amused by Robert J. Oppenheimer’s vehement rejection of “hidden variable” theory as “juvenile deviationism” which, if it could be disproved should be ignored (p. 305). That’s hardly scientific rigor, but the reaction to such theories helped to prove other aspects of quantum theory. But warnings have their place. Einstein’s caution about not continuing to seek the answers, even when perplexed, is quoted: ”Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott. Aber Boshaft ist Er nicht.“ It’s usually translated as “The Lord is subtle, but He is not malicious.” (p. 326n) It could also read, “The Lord is crafty, but He is not spiteful.” I personally like “crafty” because it suggests a role in creation while the “not spiteful” suggests what we discover in the natural order is not arbitrary. Similarly, I appreciated Heisenberg’s warning: “…we have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our nature of questioning.” (p. 356) In one sense, that says that we find what we are looking for.
Not being a physicist, I had only heard of string theory before reading The Quantum Story: A History in 40 Moments, but as I approached the end of the book, I encountered an idea about which I hadn’t paid sufficient attention—loop quantum theory [A brief description in Carlo Rovelli’s book, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, was my only exposure. Wilson Loops (developed by mathematician Kenneth Wilson—no relation) proved to be a springboard for understanding quantum gravity. As refined by Smolin and later by Rovelli, “…this was not a theory of loops existing in space and time. Rather the relationships between the loops define space.” (p. 394) Later, the researchers discovered some commonality with Roger Penrose’s “spin states” (Again, my only exposure was a brief explanation in his The Emperor’s New Mind and I didn’t realize the applicability to loop quantum theory when I read that.) in recognizing that each of Penrose’s “spin networks” was a quantum state of reality formed by combinations of loops (p. 397). This, in turn, allowed them to assert that the nodes (intersections) represented (in their totality) the quanta of volume and that the links characterize the quanta of area (that may be an overly simplistic restatement – p. 397).
Finally, one of the solutions for merging classical theory with quantum theory is to suppose multiple worlds/realities. In one, you would observe the world “spin-up” and in another “spin-down.” Having been deeply influenced by the work of Rudy Rucker on multiple dimensions, I am attracted to this portion of the theory. Yet, when this idea was first suggested, physicists called it: “…cheap on assumptions and expensive with universes.” (p. 402) Many scientists refuse to even consider superstring theory because of the inability to achieve experimental results. That may be so, but if so, The Quantum Story: A History in 40 Moments should remind physicists of the many times the theories worked before the capability of accumulating data was there but led to real results. Nevertheless, near the book’s conclusion, there is a surprising consensus. “Science is not philosophy. Yet, without recourse to experiment, it is perhaps inevitable that science becomes more speculative and metaphysical.” (p. 408)
Not being a student of science myself (okay, make that “being a lazy student throughout my undergraduate years and not majoring in a scientific subject”), I hadn’t realized of the resistance certain famous physicists had to the initial suggestions of quantum theory. I was particularly intrigued by Prince Louis De Broglie’s correlation of quantum behavior with musical notes built on wave behavior (pp. 38-39) and the general categorization of his work as “la Comedie Francais” (p. 41). It never registered to me that Neils Bohr was as adamant as when he wrote: “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description.” (quoted on p. 110) In considering the ongoing debate, I realized that my personal position was more in line with Peirce’s “pragmatism” (“what we know is not limited by what we can see, but by what we can do” – also p. 110) than with the “positivism” inherent in science since the time of Auguste Comte (“what we know is limited by what we observe” – also p. 110).
Even prior to reading the book, I was aware of quantum theory’s recognition that observation impacts the reality observed. This is touched on several times in the volume, including Bohr’s insistence that quantum mechanics had to be based on observation without interference (p. 120) and Bohr’s response to Einstein’s photon box thought-experiment (which involved the theoretical idea of being able to use a clock mechanism to open a shutter in the box at a specific time and then, reweighing the box after the proton escaped) where he used Einstein’s general theory of relativity against his experiment. He said, “The very act of weighing a clock effectively changes the way it keeps time.” (p. 138)
I was also unaware of how long these concepts were speculated upon, proposed, and accepted or abandoned prior to experimental evidence. Of course, in the 1960s, things began to change. The names of particles (observed and speculated upon) had proliferated so much that Fermi (for whom the nuclear research facility in Chicago is named) was asked if he could identify all of them. He answered, “Young man, if I could remember the names of all these particles, I would have been a botanist.” (p. 214) I hadn’t realized that Schrodinger’s “cat” was originally a “tongue-in-cheek” thought experiment aimed at quantum physicists (p. 156). Another surprise was realizing that the original “quork” was changed to “quark” as a result of a line from Finnegan’s Wake (p. 222, “Three quarks for Muster Mark! / Sure he hasn’t go much of a bark. / And sure any he has it’s all beside the mark.”)
Of course, I was intrigued to note that politics and competition played an important role in certain quantum discoveries. For example, researchers at SPEAR (Stanford Positron Electron Asymmetric Rings) heard a rumor that hadron/kaon events took place more rapidly around 3.1 GeV, so they wanted to run further tests right around that measurement. Since the accelerator was now capable of pushing 5 GeV, this seemed like an inopportune time to take a step back on the basis of a rumor (p. 271). When they discovered the creation of many such events at 100x baseline, they proceeded to name the newly discovered event the “psi” particle. Brookhaven Laboratory, the ones who originally discovered the preponderance of events at 3.1 GeV and hadn’t wanted to risk publishing as yet, had called it the “J” particle. After both labs published their results, the particle was eventually known as the “J/psi” particle (p. 274).
And if I ever doubted the efficacy of abstraction, I was corrected by noting the impact of converting quantum numbers into “colors” for advancing the model (p. 259). The physicists still had to go back to the math, but the abstraction showed them what they should really be seeking. The real key, which would become more decisive at later points was the strong force keeping particles from experiencing real separation despite “asymptotic freedom” (pp. 261-262). It appears that even quantum theories conform to the rule of three as the so-called “Standard Model” recognized three (3) types of neutrinos balanced by three (3) particle generations (p. 288) along with three (3) angles in the CKM (Cabibbo, Kobayashi, and Maskawa) matrix (p. 289). Later, string theory would be applied to a concept presented by Calabi in 1957 and Shing-tung Yau in 1978. They posited that, for each of the three physical dimensions in which we work, there are six Calabi-Yau shapes. These, in turn, produce three (3) families of vibrational patterns (p. 389).
I was amused by Robert J. Oppenheimer’s vehement rejection of “hidden variable” theory as “juvenile deviationism” which, if it could be disproved should be ignored (p. 305). That’s hardly scientific rigor, but the reaction to such theories helped to prove other aspects of quantum theory. But warnings have their place. Einstein’s caution about not continuing to seek the answers, even when perplexed, is quoted: ”Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott. Aber Boshaft ist Er nicht.“ It’s usually translated as “The Lord is subtle, but He is not malicious.” (p. 326n) It could also read, “The Lord is crafty, but He is not spiteful.” I personally like “crafty” because it suggests a role in creation while the “not spiteful” suggests what we discover in the natural order is not arbitrary. Similarly, I appreciated Heisenberg’s warning: “…we have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our nature of questioning.” (p. 356) In one sense, that says that we find what we are looking for.
Not being a physicist, I had only heard of string theory before reading The Quantum Story: A History in 40 Moments, but as I approached the end of the book, I encountered an idea about which I hadn’t paid sufficient attention—loop quantum theory [A brief description in Carlo Rovelli’s book, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, was my only exposure. Wilson Loops (developed by mathematician Kenneth Wilson—no relation) proved to be a springboard for understanding quantum gravity. As refined by Smolin and later by Rovelli, “…this was not a theory of loops existing in space and time. Rather the relationships between the loops define space.” (p. 394) Later, the researchers discovered some commonality with Roger Penrose’s “spin states” (Again, my only exposure was a brief explanation in his The Emperor’s New Mind and I didn’t realize the applicability to loop quantum theory when I read that.) in recognizing that each of Penrose’s “spin networks” was a quantum state of reality formed by combinations of loops (p. 397). This, in turn, allowed them to assert that the nodes (intersections) represented (in their totality) the quanta of volume and that the links characterize the quanta of area (that may be an overly simplistic restatement – p. 397).
Finally, one of the solutions for merging classical theory with quantum theory is to suppose multiple worlds/realities. In one, you would observe the world “spin-up” and in another “spin-down.” Having been deeply influenced by the work of Rudy Rucker on multiple dimensions, I am attracted to this portion of the theory. Yet, when this idea was first suggested, physicists called it: “…cheap on assumptions and expensive with universes.” (p. 402) Many scientists refuse to even consider superstring theory because of the inability to achieve experimental results. That may be so, but if so, The Quantum Story: A History in 40 Moments should remind physicists of the many times the theories worked before the capability of accumulating data was there but led to real results. Nevertheless, near the book’s conclusion, there is a surprising consensus. “Science is not philosophy. Yet, without recourse to experiment, it is perhaps inevitable that science becomes more speculative and metaphysical.” (p. 408)
September 16, 2012
I paid for this book, therefore I felt compelled to read it till the last page. If it was a library borrow I would had returned it.
I was expecting a plain and simple explanation of Quantum theory for the non-physicist but this book goes into a lot of detail that a physics student could benefit from.
In total honesty, I couldn’t wait for it to be over but I’m glad I made it to the last page the same way as running 0.2 miles after running 26 miles before for the whole 26.2 of a marathon.
I was expecting a plain and simple explanation of Quantum theory for the non-physicist but this book goes into a lot of detail that a physics student could benefit from.
In total honesty, I couldn’t wait for it to be over but I’m glad I made it to the last page the same way as running 0.2 miles after running 26 miles before for the whole 26.2 of a marathon.
September 8, 2013
As a historical overview of the development of quantum physics, this book was worth reading and, regarding the exposition of the quantum concepts and phenomena, it may be that it is good enough if you’re a physicist or someone already well-versed in confusing technical terminology and the underlying mathematics.
However, my experience with this book is that the technical terminology (though probably conventionally accepted) is too loose and too vaguely defined for the layperson. So, to my sorrow and regret, I do not feel I understand the most fundamental quantum concepts any better than before reading this book. For instance, I was unhappy with the explanation of Feynman’s diagrams that “the symmetry of the interaction is such that there is in principle nothing to prevents us from concluding that the photon is emitted by the second electron and travels backward in time to be absorbed by the first” because I think this explanation is misleading. And, regarding the Bell’s theorem, it seemed to me that the author was a little too satisfied with the simple interpretation that quantum mechanics involves some weird action at a distance. What about the backward causation/advanced action approach, as presented in Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time?
Parts I,II, III and VI cover the birth of quantum in 1900, the debate between Einstein and Bohr about the nature of reality, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Schrödinger’s wave mechanics, hidden variables’ approach, Bell’s inequality and Aspect experiments in much more detail than in Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality, which I was lucky to read and from which I got a lot more. Unlike the Jim Baggott's book, Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality was written as if it were a thriller and drew me, indeed, into the excitement of the times and the debate, making the concepts more comprehensible to the layperson.
Parts IV and V focus on quantum field theory and the standard model of particle physics. After toiling and moiling for some comprehension for quite some time, eventually I had to give up. Sadly, my (layperson) experience with the hunt for particles was like hunting without a catch.
Part VII, titled ‘Quantum Cosmology’, gives a very brief overview of superstrings, many-worlds interpretation and quantum-loop gravity approach.
Finally, I’d say that the lack of practically any mathematical backbone does not make this book more accessible to the layperson interested to get a better insight into physics concepts (whether they are classical, relativistic or quantum ones), which is why I loved and highly appreciated the approach to explanation of physics concepts as applied in Galloping with Light - Einstein, Relativity, and Folklore and Records of the Future - Classical Entropy, Memory, and the 'Arrow of Time'.
P.S.
Regarding the confusing terminology, I’d really like to figure out how ‘a massless particle’ can become ‘even more massless’ (as concluded by physicist Jeffrey Goldstone in 1961, while studying the effects of symmetry-breaking).
However, my experience with this book is that the technical terminology (though probably conventionally accepted) is too loose and too vaguely defined for the layperson. So, to my sorrow and regret, I do not feel I understand the most fundamental quantum concepts any better than before reading this book. For instance, I was unhappy with the explanation of Feynman’s diagrams that “the symmetry of the interaction is such that there is in principle nothing to prevents us from concluding that the photon is emitted by the second electron and travels backward in time to be absorbed by the first” because I think this explanation is misleading. And, regarding the Bell’s theorem, it seemed to me that the author was a little too satisfied with the simple interpretation that quantum mechanics involves some weird action at a distance. What about the backward causation/advanced action approach, as presented in Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time?
Parts I,II, III and VI cover the birth of quantum in 1900, the debate between Einstein and Bohr about the nature of reality, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Schrödinger’s wave mechanics, hidden variables’ approach, Bell’s inequality and Aspect experiments in much more detail than in Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality, which I was lucky to read and from which I got a lot more. Unlike the Jim Baggott's book, Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality was written as if it were a thriller and drew me, indeed, into the excitement of the times and the debate, making the concepts more comprehensible to the layperson.
Parts IV and V focus on quantum field theory and the standard model of particle physics. After toiling and moiling for some comprehension for quite some time, eventually I had to give up. Sadly, my (layperson) experience with the hunt for particles was like hunting without a catch.
Part VII, titled ‘Quantum Cosmology’, gives a very brief overview of superstrings, many-worlds interpretation and quantum-loop gravity approach.
Finally, I’d say that the lack of practically any mathematical backbone does not make this book more accessible to the layperson interested to get a better insight into physics concepts (whether they are classical, relativistic or quantum ones), which is why I loved and highly appreciated the approach to explanation of physics concepts as applied in Galloping with Light - Einstein, Relativity, and Folklore and Records of the Future - Classical Entropy, Memory, and the 'Arrow of Time'.
P.S.
Regarding the confusing terminology, I’d really like to figure out how ‘a massless particle’ can become ‘even more massless’ (as concluded by physicist Jeffrey Goldstone in 1961, while studying the effects of symmetry-breaking).
April 20, 2015
This is a nice little popular history of quantum physics, from Planck's introduction of the quantum in 1900 to the present day. The best part of the book is probably the first half or so, which deals with the creation of quantum theory, up to the establishment of QED as a complete theory around 1950.
Although there is not really any mathematics in the book, the author does go into a bit more technical detail than is usual in popular histories of this sort. Since I have a mathematical background, and a vague general idea of the structure of quantum theory, this was a plus for me. On the other hand, some parts, such as the description of the failure of Bell's inequality and its generalizations (which basically amounts to a quantitative and experimentally testable version of the statement "quantum theory is weird") were hard to digest. A whole book could be written (and probably has, though I haven't read it) on what the failure of Bell's inequality really means; I could not extract understanding from this one. Still, this book is generally worth reading, if you're a layman who wants to learn something about modern physics.
Although there is not really any mathematics in the book, the author does go into a bit more technical detail than is usual in popular histories of this sort. Since I have a mathematical background, and a vague general idea of the structure of quantum theory, this was a plus for me. On the other hand, some parts, such as the description of the failure of Bell's inequality and its generalizations (which basically amounts to a quantitative and experimentally testable version of the statement "quantum theory is weird") were hard to digest. A whole book could be written (and probably has, though I haven't read it) on what the failure of Bell's inequality really means; I could not extract understanding from this one. Still, this book is generally worth reading, if you're a layman who wants to learn something about modern physics.
October 20, 2011
Too ambitious and too complex. The author has a good concept in mind but in the chronological recount of the development he never could reach where the theory is now (after all the bumblings and Eureka moments) and the meaning of it all. The book is extremely complex in parts and completely loses its readers in ascribing the meaning to all the mathematical innovations (or may be he says somewhere, there is no meaning). That said, a decent book to go through for anyone with interest in the subject and has already read all the more popular ones.
June 20, 2018
As other people have noted, this is a bit tough sledding for a non-physicist (which I am), but I found it worthwhile and interesting to persevere.
March 23, 2022
3.75 stars
June 29, 2023
In humble acknowledgement that this book's apparent boringness is almost definitely due to my own lack of understanding than the writer's own efforts, I held onto giving this three stars for as long as I could. In the end, I just figured, since I still had to sit through it all, I would rate more on my own level of enjoyment rather than be more objective.
I will say that the author does a decent job in making sure the human element is maintained throughout the book. All the minute developments of this new and fascinating (if for the layperson mind-boggling) field are explored through all the individuals involved. If you are much more into this topic than I evidently ended up being, I'm sure this book is quite a good one.
For me though, it really can't get more than three stars, and I hesitate to give it even that. Hence two.
I will say that the author does a decent job in making sure the human element is maintained throughout the book. All the minute developments of this new and fascinating (if for the layperson mind-boggling) field are explored through all the individuals involved. If you are much more into this topic than I evidently ended up being, I'm sure this book is quite a good one.
For me though, it really can't get more than three stars, and I hesitate to give it even that. Hence two.
February 17, 2015
although i loved it, as a physicist i think that you have to be one in order to really enjoy it. there are scarcely any equations, but the concepts may be overwhelming for a layperson. baggott mentions that the 40 moments are subjectively chosen, but i believe he did an amazing job with them. being somewhat obsessed with the whole "copenhagen movement", i though i knew all there is to know about this circle of physicists, but baggott gave me a few stories i knew nothing about. overall, a great read, provided you are already familiar with the physics behind it and want to know how all pieces came together.
July 6, 2021
If you happen to have taken college-level classes in quantum physics, you'll love this book. If you have a deep interest in quantum physics but haven't taken courses, set this book aside, get a degree, and then come back and read it. If you're neither of those things, punt this book - it's absolutely useless for you.
The whole thing is idiotically technical; if the author had a gift for creating excellent metaphors, he could have revolutionized popular understand of quantum physics; if he had a sense of humor, I could have enjoyed this book. He has neither, so I can only say that I've read it.
The whole thing is idiotically technical; if the author had a gift for creating excellent metaphors, he could have revolutionized popular understand of quantum physics; if he had a sense of humor, I could have enjoyed this book. He has neither, so I can only say that I've read it.
October 30, 2022
This book is great if you have a decent knowledge of quantum mechanics and want to learn more about its inception and historical development.
If you have a physics background, the book almost reads like a detective novel where you know who the killer is, but where is mystery is in the clues and the investigation. Very satisfying!
The division into 40 chapters is very convenient and well thought out.
If you have a physics background, the book almost reads like a detective novel where you know who the killer is, but where is mystery is in the clues and the investigation. Very satisfying!
The division into 40 chapters is very convenient and well thought out.
March 16, 2017
یرای فهمیدن این کتاب نیاز است حداقل کارشناسی ارشد فیزیک داشته باشید.این کتاب یه کتاب مربوط به علوم عامه نیست. تخصصی است و برای فیزیکدان ها بسیار مفید می باشد.لطفا اگر این فیزیکدان نیستید این کتاب را نخوانید به زبان ساده و همه فهم نوشته نشده است.
July 4, 2018
Excellent book. Loved it. Already put a hold on his book Origins. I'm actually rereading the chapter on the Standard Model right now... The book covers the shift from classical, Newtonian physics to a focus on quantum systems. Max Planck kicked off this quantum revolution with his work on cavity radiation and the discovery of the constant attached to his name. But Einstein figured out that this constant also applied to measuring the energy of photons (light). Then Bohr figured out that it applied to orbital energies of atoms. Why?? The book is really a history book, but very heavy in physics. One of my favorite parts was the Bohr-Einstein debates at Solvey. Einstein straddled the generational rift, but the debates still reflected the schism in the physics community. This was two of history's greatest thinkers locked in battle. I also really enjoyed the sections on wave mechanics, the exclusion principle and early quantum entanglement. Every big name in physics is covered within, and Jim Baggott is gifted in writing about physics. He reminds me of Amir Aczel. Every time I read a book like this I ask myself how did my high school science teachers manage to make the most interesting topic possible so dry and boring to me? Or was the failure mine? I wasn't a great student in high school.
June 1, 2019
I think telling the history of Quantum Physics as a sequence of important results and movements is a great way to not only introduce people to the scientific concepts, but give them a good sense of how things progressed and how the personalities in the field interacted and affected the progress.
The content was fairly challenging for a non-physicist, some chapters more so than others, but where I understood less of the science I was still learning a lot from the bottom-line conclusions and the historical context. I do wish some of those conclusions were highlighted a little more directly, but the information was there as written.
This book would be especially challenging for someone with NO background in physics, so I wouldn't necessarily recommend it as a first read. But with that said, it doesn't quite require prior knowledge, so if someone were committed to sitting and wrestling with the ideas, I'd say go for it!
The content was fairly challenging for a non-physicist, some chapters more so than others, but where I understood less of the science I was still learning a lot from the bottom-line conclusions and the historical context. I do wish some of those conclusions were highlighted a little more directly, but the information was there as written.
This book would be especially challenging for someone with NO background in physics, so I wouldn't necessarily recommend it as a first read. But with that said, it doesn't quite require prior knowledge, so if someone were committed to sitting and wrestling with the ideas, I'd say go for it!
March 18, 2017
Many readers have given this book 2 stars because they were expecting a book that explains the math and science of quantum physics. This book doesn't do that. The purpose of the book is to zero in on the fascinating historical and social episodes of the growth of quantum physics from 1900 - near present. To fully appreciate and enjoy the book, some background knowledge is needed. I find the appropriate audience to be those who have knowledge congruent with courses in modern, quantum, and particle physics (junior or senior physics courses). I think the author should have printed a disclaimer at the outset declaring his intention is not to teach the hardcore science but to reveal interesting social and historical details concerning quantum theory's progression.
From my point of view, I love the book. Not only have I gained great insight into the people who contributed to quantum theory, I have learned more about post-WWII physics than I ever did from my "Modern Physics" course.
Oh, this monster read is 410 pages not 320.
From my point of view, I love the book. Not only have I gained great insight into the people who contributed to quantum theory, I have learned more about post-WWII physics than I ever did from my "Modern Physics" course.
Oh, this monster read is 410 pages not 320.
February 9, 2024
Ok, for a non initiate it is really heavy going, but it does give you plenty of information, it would take you sometime to assimilate the whole content, but it does give you a deeper understanding of whole discussion of the quantum physics on a historical background, so the concepts are understood in a context, not just "out there". For the initiate, still it may give you an interesting point of view. I recommend it.
July 11, 2017
Just finished "The Quantum Story: A History in 40 Moments" by Jim Baggott. This is a history of Quantum Mechanics and is highly readable by anyone with am interest and moderate scientific background. While most of the 40 topics weren't new to me it was enlightening to learn how they intertwined down through the years and who did what. Fine book.
September 4, 2017
Compelling read. Chapter structure made it very focused and yet very easy to read. Each chapter describes one key area of quantum physics. Chapters build slowly on one another so that different interesting views of a problem are contrasted. Excellent structure and development to make it a fascinating story.
Want to read
September 1, 2022DMPL Massimo Pigliucci: involved in disputes about what I regard as pseudo-philosophy, and even less so about pseudoscience coming from within the scientific establishment... I’m not alone in this thankless task. You should check, for instance, the writings of my friend Jim Baggott, or those or my colleagues Sabine Hossenfelder and Peter Woit
June 12, 2017
I was able to easily follow this up to the years leading up to and shortly after WWII. After that I found it increasingly hard to follow, but that might be simply because my background in this subject and subatomic particles is not up to it, just yet.
September 14, 2018
Having already read other books on physics and cosmology I’ve found this book quite complicated. I agree with whom consider this text for physics students of early years, because in some parts the text is not properly written for lay readers like me, too technical in explanations and jargon. Anyway this text is complete, well and abundantly documented and presents the story of quantum mechanics very well. Unfortunately for this book, its publication date is 2011, so just before the discovery of the Higgs boson at LHC in Geneva. What a pity for a book on quantum story!
November 24, 2019
This book helped me understand how bad my physics professors were in my undergraduate degree. They never really tried to show any historical context, or connect between the difference subjects. Just equations and theory in the very narrowest sense.
April 12, 2020
I made the effort, but I had to call it quits during moment 19.
Jim Baggott has his PhD in physical chemistry. I don't know who his target audience is, but it seems like undergraduates majoring in chemistry, physics or mathematics. If you are not there, read something else.
Jim Baggott has his PhD in physical chemistry. I don't know who his target audience is, but it seems like undergraduates majoring in chemistry, physics or mathematics. If you are not there, read something else.
May 26, 2020
This is a very well-done book that a lot of readers who are unfamiliar with the development of quantum mechanics, and who prefer their science texts without equations, will really enjoy. For me personally, there was too much overlap with other texts I have read.
February 10, 2023
Finally, a clear overview of the history of development of quantum physics, from Max Planck to superstrings and loop quantum gravity. The only book where you will finally find who influenced whom and how the ideas were developed in time.
October 1, 2020
Inevitably the further you get into the book the more incomprehensible it becomes, but still a fascinating read.
April 29, 2021
This is an amazing book !! Give this a try if you want to learn how quantum was born without having to be involved with complicated mathematical equations and all !
Also, paul dirac 🖤
Also, paul dirac 🖤
July 18, 2022
A really awesome review of the evolution of quantum theory. The only sad thing is it covers through about 2010, which leaves out recent developments.
November 28, 2023
Too difivult for me.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews