I petered out toward the end. This book is definitely drier and denser than Baggott's "Quantum Reality." Per a three-star reviewer, I wonder how much of this was actually written by John Heilbron, with Baggott putting the finishing touches on after Heilbron's death.
Second, in reading this, I was reminded of the old American English phrase, "Opinions are like assholes: Everybody has one." Per the book, I think in the world of quantum physics and quantum mechanics, many people have multiple orifices, including whoever was the primary author. The biggest example of this is the generally dismissive attitude toward Heisenberg.
And with that, we're off to the Epilogue, which insured this would be two stars, not three, whichever of the two people listed as author wrote it.
"Jews are conspicuous in our drama. .... (O)ur protagonists owed much to their Jewish heritage. ... Their world is the world of the mind."
Worse? A Danish Jewish contemporary of Bohr's, Henri Nathensen, is then cited in support.
"From the special exclusivity of this life of the mind Jewish 'chutzpa,' boldness, something between courage and insolence has developed." (There's more after that.)
To sound Jewish myself?
Oy vey!
The author(s) then note that Heisenberg (and others, such as Dirac and Schrödinger) were also not Jewish. But, they add, "By the time they came on the scene, Bohr, Einstein (et al) had established ways of thought."
Specifically on Heisenberg, this writes out of the picture his "way of thought" of the uncertainty theorem, something the author(s) seem at pains to understate throughout much of the book. It also ignores Planck, who was also a goy. I guess it was something besides chutzpah that led him to make the initial leap into the world of the quantum.
Imagine if the stuff two paragraphs above were written about Chinese. Imagine if it will be if Chinese, whether in China, Taiwan or the US, accelerate their percentage of physics Nobels.
Oy vey!
Finally, per the Epilogue's claim that the Nobel committee is not favorable to what they call "foundational physics"? Many Nobels in physics have gone to astrophysicists, something outside the quantum world in general. Many others have been for what would best be called physical engineering. So, I think they're overreading.
==
Add: Contra the editorial blurb, if someone "resolves" the Bohr and Einstein-related interpretative differences, you can bet your ass there WILL INDEED BE one or more Nobels.