Un universo diferente: La reinvención de la física en la Edad de la Emergencia

by Robert B. Laughlin

Los notables avances científicos del siglo XX llevaron a muchos a sostener la tesis según la cual la ciencia ha terminado. El fin de la ciencia -para utilizar una expresión que se ha popularizado- sería consecuencia. justamente. de su éxito: nada verdaderamente importante quedaría por descubrir después de la mecánica cuántica. la relatividad. el big bang o la biología evolutiva. En Un universo diferente. el Premio Nobel de Física Robert B.Laughlin sostiene que no sólo no hemos llegado al fin de la ciencia. sino que ni siquiera estamos cerca. La única frontera que hemos alcanzado. dice el autor. es la de cierto tipo de pensamiento reduccionista. Si en lugar de buscar teorías últimas o definitivas observamos el mundo de las propiedades emergentes -es decir. las propiedades que surgen de la organización de grandes cantidades de átomos-. los misterios más indescifrables se vuelven comprensibles.Laughlin da incluso un paso más: en realidad. las leyes fundamentales de la física -las del movimiento de Newton o las de la mecánica cuántica. por ejemplo- son emergentes. en tanto son propiedades de grandes cantidades de materia. y cuando se examina de cerca su exactitud ésta desaparece. Un universo diferente nos propone un viaje a un mundo en el que el vacío del espacio no está vacío. sino constituido por una clase particular de materia sólida. el sonido tiene partículas cuantizadas como las de la luz. las fases de la materia no son tres sino muchas más. los metales tienen las propiedades de los líquidos y el helio superfluido se asemeja a los sólidos. Se trata de un mundo repleto de fenómenos naturales que no se han descubierto todavía. Y lo más sorprendente es que no es otro que el mundo en que vivimos. Un universo diferente es un libro fascinante en el que los lectores descubrirán un mundo nuevo. misterioso y bello a la vez. escrito con extraordinaria claridad y con magnífico sentido del humor.

Genres: Science, Physics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Popular Science

278 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 2005

About the author

Robert Betts Laughlin (born November 1, 1950) is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Stanford University. Along with Horst L. Störmer of Columbia University and Daniel C. Tsui of Princeton University, he was awarded a share of the 1998 Nobel Prize in physics for their explanation of the fractional quantum Hall effect.
Laughlin was born in Visalia, California. He earned a B.A. in Mathematics from UC Berkeley in 1972, and his Ph.D. in physics in 1979 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Between 2004 and 2006 he served as the president of KAIST in Daejeon, South Korea.
Laughlin shares similar views to George Chapline, doubting the existence of black holes.

Reviews

[Brent · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the same way that knowledge of a single ant would not lead you to intuit the complex society and behaviors of an ant colony, Laughlin argues that the study of quantum mechanics, no matter how thorough, will never lead us to a full understanding of complex physical phenomena of the larger world.

This property of ants as a colony being fundamentally different than an ant as an individual, is called emergence, and the study of emergence Laughlin claims is the future of science.

He argues that the trend in modern physics to start at the smallest scale and work your way up in an ever lengthening chain of cause and effect is a dead end. The study of quanta may be fun, he says, but it is not significant, it doesn't actually mean anything in the real world.

Some rules only emerge at scale. Which is why the seemingly mystical rules of the quantum realm and the rules of the larger physical world are so very different, he says. Only when you have a sufficiently massive number of quanta do the rules of the large scale universe start to emerge.

Figuring our why that is (instead of continuing to split atoms into smaller and smaller pieces) he says, will be the next focus of science.

[David Rubenstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a delightful book by a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. The basic premise of the book is that most of the physics mechanisms are emergent. For example, Newton's Laws are not an approximation to quantum mechanics. They emerge from quantum mechanics, when the quantity of matter involved becauses sufficiently large; they are a "collective organizational phenomenon". Robert Laughlin gives lots and lots of examples of this sort of thing.

This book is perhaps more about the philosophy of physics, rather than about physics itself. For example, he writes about his father,

At one point he became exasperated with the barrage of ignorant statements about reality from the kids and explained, barely controlling himself, that logic was the systematic method of committing error.

Laughlin does not give complete descriptions of the physics concepts that he discusses; instead, brings up various issues where he disagrees with the majority of physicists. Then he uses metaphors to help the layman understand the issue. For example, in reference to an aggregation of atoms, he writes,

One might compare this phenomenon with a yet-to-be-filmed Stephen Spielberg movie in which a huge number of little ghosts lock arms and, in doing so, become corporeal.

Or, with another metaphor,

The generation of uncertainty by amplifiers resembles the generation of vacuousness by news organizations when there is no news.

Laughlin compares the dilemma of students in understanding superconductivity to contestants on the "Jeopardy" game, he compares the energy gap in a superconducting state to Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments in which Moses parts the Red Sea, and an idealized model of superconductivity to the game Sim City. And my favorite,

Nuclear force is typically a student's first encounter with the idea that empty space is not really empty. Coming to grips with this fact--a physics rite of passage--is simultaneously thrilling and upsetting, like sneaking off to a dark place with your girlfriend and discovering that you have mistakenly gone to the bunkhouse.

While the book is very entertaining, Laughlin does not give enough of the background for each of the issues he brings up, for a non-specialist to truly understand it. But the lighthearted humor, the fantastic metaphors and his keen perceptions about physics make this a great book.

[Rick Vigorous · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very roughly, modern physics research falls under three headings: particle physics, focusing on the very small (think Higgs boson); astrophysics, focusing on the very large (galaxies and stuff); and condensed matter physics--known to the previous generation as solid state physics--focusing on the the very many (very many particles, that is, as in a piece of metal or a cup of fluid). Being a condensed matter physicist myself, I'm particularly attached to the third of these areas. But while there is no shortage of excellent popular-level books on particle physics and astrophysics, I'd never been able to find a good book about my own field that I could, for example, give to my parents to help them better appreciate exactly what it is that I do and why it's interesting. I was therefore excited to learn about this book, which seemed like it might be able to fill that gap.

The core idea of this book is that new properties can emerge in systems of many interacting constituents, even though the constituents may not exhibit these properties individually. This happens, for example, when we talk about a liquid flowing or a gas having pressure. These things are possible through collective behavior, even though single molecules can't flow or have pressure. A more exotic example is a bunch of electrons in a metal interacting and forming a superconducting state. Such emergent properties are ubiquitous and robust in physics and in many other areas (think of ants in an ant colony, or transistors in a computer), and--Laughlin would argue--deserve to be considered on equal footing with the "fundamental" laws governing elementary particles.

Being a leader in this field and a Nobel prize-winner, Laughlin seems like he would be a great person to write such a book. I have a tremendous respect for Laughlin's work as a physicist. I've read many of his scientific papers and have found them to be models of clear and creative scientific thinking. And while the ideas discussed in this book are beautiful and important, the exposition just doesn't do them justice.

Laughlin seems to have thought that the best way to connect with lay readers about difficult ideas would be to unleash his inner stand-up comedian. Here's but one example: "Quantum entanglement is one of those things that's easy to understand but almost impossible to believe--like free checking." Truthfully, this is the sort of one-liner that one expects to be followed by a crisp "Ba-dum TSCHH!" or perhaps a "wakka wakka!" from Fozzie Bear, and isn't especially effective at conveying anything about the nature of quantum entanglement. This sort of thing wouldn't be so bad if it only occurred occasionally, but the fact that every page in the book is full of this stuff. On top of this are the longer digressions that at times make the book seem like an exercise in free association. In order to illustrate the point that "things aren't always what they seem," the author launches into a page-long anecdote about the time when his college roommate kept a dead animal--which seemed to be a rabbit, but turned out not to be--in the kitchen cupboard.

Overall, this book gets high marks for the main ideas, but low marks for the execution. Apparently the Brief History of Time for condensed matter physics is still waiting to be written.

[Chris · Rating 1 out of 5]

I slogged through the book -- not that it was long or difficult to read -- and came out the other side realizing I hadn't learned anything. Hey! That's not fair. Perhaps in an attempt to appeal to the fragile mentality of the common man, the Nobel Laureate author fails to provide much substance. To me it came across as a long-winded and weakly supported diatribe of how certain areas (all things reductionist) of scientific research are ultimately useless and a waste of taxpayers' money (yes, he used that phrase) and we need to focus our attention on seeking emergent properties (but productive forms of researching this are what exactly...?). Okay, I will accede that some research is more valuable to humanity and therefore more likely to be funded (muttermutter why is humanity all that great I wanna study critters), but I had a tough time following his logic and his distinctions for what does have scientific merit. Bah. One thing I found really annoying was each chapter contained a sprinkling of analogies plus one quaint, detailed personal anecdote (typically involving hiking in the harsh yet beautiful mountains of the American west) that felt totally isolated from the chapter's subject matter. Uh, what was the point of telling us that story, other than demonstrating your outdoorsiness? It happened frequently on a smaller scale too. Rather than help form connecting bridges between points, the analogies and examples seemed to push the islands of topical material farther apart. My overall impression: windbag on a soapbox telling us to throw away the microscopes and look at the big picture.

[Mario Negrello · Rating 4 out of 5]

Did you know that sound propagating in solids is quantized? It's called a phonon. And it may be the best analogy yet to think about the quantum world and its properties. The book hits squarely on the idea that many properties we measure in the physics of matter are emergent properties the organization, rather than god like universals, ethereally disconnected from the bodies in reality.

I have enjoyed his (often curmudgeony) high level commentary, his keen understanding of the limits of the scientific method when applied to measure reality, and his enlightened, though prescriptive, stance towards the ontology of scientific claims.

[Linda Robinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's been my belief for years - as Claude Levi-Strauss mentioned more than once - that magic and science don't know they're neighbors.

Yet.

Physics is organizing the first block party. Laughlin, a Nobel Prize winner in physics is able to write like a person who's writing for other humanoids.

This is a scholar who can call the sea what it is...a hole filled with water.

As only Stephen Hawking has before, the heady realm of advanced academics is delivered directly, and understandably, to our heads.

Physics can be fun? Go figure.

[Tim Robinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

His point seems to be that the connection between engineering physics and atomic physics is tenuous and unproven. Physics on both scales is well understood but macro concepts like crystal structure and melting points cannot yet be predicted or calculated from micro concepts. The house of physics stands, but what keeps the roof up? We don't know!

[Karen Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is centered around one idea: Emergence. What is emergence? It is a physical principle of organization which explains how possibly complex phenomena arise from how different constituents are organized, not the properties of the parts within. Laughlin puts forward one thesis: most higher level physical laws are consequences of emergence--- arising from collective self-organization, rather than being sensitive to the details microscopic rules.

Although he makes no explanation for where such principles of organization may arise from, as would probably be impossible anyone to do without speculation, Laughlin provides illustrations from physical science to help the reader understand this concept. One such insightful illustration is the following: “Since principles of organizations --- or, more precisely, their consequences, can be laws, these can themselves organize into new laws, and these into still newer laws, and so on. The laws of electron motion begets the laws of thermodynamics and chemistry, which beget the laws of crystallization, which beget the laws of rigidity and plasticity, which beget the laws of engineering. The natural world is thus an interdependent hierarchy of descent.”

Laughlin goes further to make the non-trivial claim that there is no real distinction between "fundamental laws" and laws descending from them. "What physical science has to tell us is that the whole being more than the sum of its parts it not merely a concept but a physical phenomenon. Nature is regulated not only by a microscopic rule base but by powerful and general principles of organization." This may be quite counterintuitive since we may quite used to thinking of the basic unit as more fundamental and basic, and to the idea of reductionism being at the heart of scientific investigations (in many cases, at least).

To support his view, Laughlin provides physical examples about the ideal gas law, semiconductor physics, phase transitions, astronomy. He presents us with experiments to challenge our conception of the bottom-up approach being more “fundamental”. The most compelling among these are the measurements of “fundamental” constants such as the elementary charge. It turns out that the most accurate and precise value is not obtained by a sophisticated measurement setup with a huge apparatus measuring the charge of electrons stripped from atoms, but determined from the Josephson constant in the context of superconductivity, and the von Kiltzing constant from the Quantum Hall Effect. Both of these experiments involve very imperfect crystal samples, and a large number of atoms, and yet it is in these collective phenomena that we seem to find the most certainly in these fundamental values. Collective behavior seems to determine attributes of “individual particles”? Interestingly, the notion of the “wave property of matter” would make more sense when we view waves as some collective motion. Frankly, it is hard to wrap your brain around these, but this is a good argument for the case that the simplest and basic physical laws come not from the parts, but the whole. In Laughlin’s own words, “Exactness is a collective effect that comes into existence because of a principle of organization.”

Even if you are unfamiliar with higher-level physics and never heard of renormalization or knew much about ether, the properties of vacuum, or quantum theory, you can find some understanding of these and other ideas in the many non-science examples and analogies from daily life and society.

Overall, “A Different Universe” is witty and quite eloquently written, and an insightful and enjoyable read.

[Hạnh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thực sự thì tôi không hiểu phần lớn những vấn đề khoa học đề cập trong sách, nhưng cuốn sách vẫn rất thú vị khi được biết về những suy nghĩ khác, những khía cạnh khác của khoa học, của thái độ, của cuộc sống. Cách viết của tác giả cũng rất bình dị và dễ tiếp cận.
Ban đầu khi mua, tôi cứ tưởng là sách về thiên văn, sau đó nhiều lần đọc rồi ngừng vì đọc đến những vấn đề mà tôi chả hiểu gì sất, rồi lại đọc tiếp. 3 năm mới xong một cuốn sách chỉ có hơn 300 trang thì cũng cảm thấy mình vãi thật.

[John J · Rating 2 out of 5]

What's the point of this book?

It was very difficult for me to understand what the point of this book is. I think the author is saying that the "laws of physics" are descriptive instead of prescriptive, and they emerge through self organization and are revealed only through exact measurements, not through reasoning or logic. If that is the message he was trying to get across, then he really beat around the bush expressing it.

Okay then, what is the fundamental self-organizing Principle? What is the Prime Directive from which all laws emerge? The author doesn't tell us, unfortunately. Just keep measuring and maybe eventually you'll find out.

I did a word search of the book on my Kindle, and the word "entropy" does not appear even once. This is strange, because entropy lies at the root of everything. Every system will organize and configure itself in a way that maximizes the number of its internal microstates and achieve maximal uncertainty. Some systems do this slowly and some rapidly. The "laws" that emerge describe these tendencies. This Principle extends to spacetime itself, as expressed by Newton's emergent "law" of gravitation, where two bodies move together in order to maximize spacetime's internal entropy (refer to Erik Verlinde's groundbreaking work on entropic inertia and gravity).

Anyhow, enough of what isn't covered in the book. One more nitpick, however. There is a fairly comprehensive index in the back of the Kindle version, but there are no page numbers associated with the topics listed and no way to navigate from the index back into the text of the body of the book.

There isn't much in this book beyond the author's own anecdotes and superficial historical tidbits, which are better covered elsewhere. I wouldn't recommend reading it if you want to gain insights about how the universe actually works "from the bottom up."

[Mishehu · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author is obviously well-qualified to write a book on the subject. And the core ideas that animate the book are fascinating. But the execution I rate as mostly very poor.

This is a work of popular science. Yet a great deal of the exposition is fuzzy and needlessly obscure. This is in part owing to the specific examples the author selects to illustrate his thesis. The author provides insufficient context for the lay reader to understand their relevance in general, or to the book’s thesis specifically. The lay reader forms an impression of relevance at both registers but might prefer a deeper understanding. And a specialist reader would, I assume, have no use for a book as non-technical as this one. So, who’s the author’s target readership? Compounding the expository problem is the author’s effort to explain complex ideas/examples/experiments/natural facts by means of analogies. This approach is, of course, standard (and necessary) fare in popular science books. But the author’s choice of analogies is confusing throughout. He may be a great scientist (witness: Stanford professorship, Nobel Prize), but an able popular science writer he ain’t. And a couple lesser (yet niggling) criticisms: the author frequently comes across as smug, and the book has numerous sexist passages—one that’s shockingly so in a how-did-this-survive-the-editing-process sort of way.

For all its faults though, and despite my poor rating and critical review, the book did give me a lot to think about. I can’t recommend it, but I’m glad for the opportunity to ponder its key ideas. (Hopefully, there are better popular treatments of these same ideas elsewhere…)

[Steve Stanton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist Robert B. Laughlin heralds the end of scientific reductionism in this book written for lay readers announcing the Emergent Age. The complicated text is spiced with analogy and personal anecdotes to make the ideas accessible, but the subject matter is deep and cuts to the heart of our understanding of reality. As science probes the microscopic limits of subatomic realms, experimenters reach an unbreakable wall of quantum-mechanical uncertainty, past which results cannot be verified or repeated and meaning cannot be ascribed. The physical laws that govern our normal world are the result of aggregated objects, and thus simplicity emerges uplevel from complexity following organizational patterns that are robustly insensitive to uncertainty, error and random fluctuations. The author argues across disciplines that emergent principles of nature govern much of what we see and measure, not the pure mathematics of a “billiard-ball” quantum universe. The thing I like most about this book is that it asks more questions than it answers, as true scientific inquiry always should. Why does sound behave in quanta similar to light? Why does the vacuum of space have an electrical effect on the wavelength of atomic spectra? Where are the detailed instructions to atoms in chaos that cause the orderly lattice of phase transitions from liquid to solid? The one drawback of the book is the author's digressions into the politics of scientific funding, but overall he handles a wide range of topics with wit and aplomb.

[T.F. · Rating 4 out of 5]

The point this book is trying to convey is to show most phenomena we observer are emergent and not reductionist. In other words, physical phenomena in macro scale are not an aggregate of the quantum phenomena. On the contrary, he postulates that macro phenomena may actually be independent of micro phenomena. It might actually be emerging from the organization of the components rather than the properties of the components themselves. He discusses various examples and brings out the various fallacies scientific communities tend to fall into. For example, the challenges in measuring quantum level phenomena. We still do not have technology to directly measure. At that level any of our equipment will disturb the phenomena we are measuring and disturbance may be so much that one can't distinguish between the disturbance and the phenomena itself. And often, the results we see may be due to factors other than the phenomena we are studying. The author has strong views and tries to present a philosophy of emergence rather than reductionism giving anecdotes from his day to day experience in life as well. Overall I found the book enjoyable in most parts though at times, it was not fully possible to comprehend, grasp and retain the physics and the anecdotes at places seemed more a distraction, trying to illustrate a point which could have been established in a more simpler manner rather than the tenuous link to the anecdote. But overall the point got through and the book made a pleasant read. Possibly a second read will make the details clearer.

[Minh Nhật · Rating 3 out of 5]

Một cuốn sách phải nói là viết khoa học khá dở so với các sách khoa học thường thức khác đã đọc. Các lĩnh vực được đề cập đến quá sâu và chuyên môn, nếu người đọc không phải là người làm hay nghiên cứu trong lĩnh vực vật liệu với các hiệu ứng hall và một số lĩnh vực mình không biết phải gọi tên là gì. Chủ đề ngay lúc đầu được chọn thì rất hay là hiện tượng Đột sinh, nghĩa là từ các nguyên tắc cơ bản nhưng lại tạo ra các sự phát triển rất phức tạp và xem đây như một hướng nghiên cứu mới khác với hướng nghiên cứu truyền thống là quy giản luận(nghiên cứu các hiện tượng phức tạp bằng cách quy giản thành các nguyên lý đơn giản), tuy nhiên phần chứng minh thì không rõ ràng, và lan man.

Nhưng ở 1/3 ở cuối sách lại đề cập tới đời sống khoa học học rất hay. Đó không chỉ là thế giới đóng gọn trong các phòng lab của các nhà vật lý mà là các lợi ích kinh tế, các quan hệ về quyền lực với chính quyền trong việc chia sẻ các phát kiến với đồng minh hay bảo mật trước các 'quốc gia thù địch', sự ganh đua của các nhà khoa học trong việc giành lấy giải thưởng, tên tuổi và quan trọng nhất là ngân sách để nghiên cứu. Vì thế nó đặt ra rất nhiều vấn đề đạo đức trong nghiên cứu khi một phát kiến quá mới mẻ được đưa ra thì rất khó để kiếm chứng sự đúng sai trong một thời gian ngắn.

Nói chung nếu bạn lướt qua được 2/3 cuốn sách thì 1/3 cuối cùng có thể coi là phần thưởng xứng đáng :)

[E · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is tough to review or rate, for admittedly some of it went over my head. Laughlin writes a philosophy of physics to combat the twin fallacies of reductionism and triumphalism. He wants to steer us away from both "ultimate theories" and the hegemony of quantum mechanics (which, although it gets all the press, only describes a very small portion of the physical universe).

This is a man who has won a Nobel Prize (on quasiparticles, even) and is yet humble and accessible, characteristics quite rare in modern physics. He tells it like it is from an insider's point of view. He has no patience for obfuscation or fitting the facts to fit the hypothesis.

[Francisco Viliesid · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic read. Many phrases I highlighted, but this last one I like: "While supernatural intervention is always difficult to disprove categorically, we know for certain that there is no need for it at this level, and that all of these miraculous behaviors can be accounted for as spontaneous organizational phenomena that descend from underlying law". Symmetry breaking. "So much to do, so little time", said Nowhereman...

[Akhil · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great and informative read about the physics of emergence and its implications for science more generally. Contains plenty of clues for the more dense technical phenomena discussed, like the quantum Hall effect and superconductivity. In the latter third of the book it begins to meander a bit into discussions of the state of science itself - politics, funding, and so forth. This doesn’t detract from the book but is perhaps a bit more than what some readers asked for.

[Ezra · Rating 1 out of 5]

Laughlin calls other theories wrong because they make leaps they cannot support with the available evidence. Then proceeds to state why his ideas are better and not demonstrate why his are supported by the available evidence. Just painful to read. By the way, describing others as illogical and stupid really defeats the argument.

[Mark Duckworth · Rating 2 out of 5]

I usually like books like this. But this style of writing just didn't seem to suit me. If I go back and read it again more carefully I can probably get more out of it, but I don't think I'll make the effort.

[Frank Lovell (Jr.) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though-provoking, but not terribly informative. This book raises more question than it answers, but then, that is not unusual with physics, nor a bad thing -- it seems to be precisely the nature of property emergence -- reveals more mystery than solves mystery.

[David Gross · Rating 1 out of 5]

Corny folksy anecdotes interspersed with poorly-explained physics. He kept sounding like he was on the verge of saying something interesting and novel and then he'd become unnecessarily obscure instead and try to tell another joke.

[THERESA A LACY · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read

Makes physics much more understandable and enjoyable. The writing is is very nice and that is the reason for the 5 stars,I hope the author continues to create. Science is not just about science.

[Robbie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an exciting book for me. It introduced a whole new scientific view of the universe. It is a real paradigm shift. If he is correct science is undergoing a tremendous evolution.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is actually worth 5.3445 stars. If you must know why, you'll have to read it.

[Jonathan Hockey · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book glances over some good and important ideas in the central sections, but be prepared to deal with an awful lot of boomer US era anecdotes either side of these sections that largely have little relevance to the issue in physics.

His biggest philosophical errors/weaknesses and area of ambiguity for me is that he seems to be trying to defend a form of physicalism at the same time as criticising reductionism and defending emergence. It is not clear to me what he is basing this physicalist interpretation of how emergence spontaneously appears, other than by appealing to rules that create unpredictable systems. The problem is that there is no reason for thinking that these rules or this order be physicalist on the fundamental level, it could equally be mystical, spiritual or whatever you want it to be. So he confounds in this area often a naturalistic interpretation as also being a physical one by default, but once again, this cannot follow other than by fiat, not based on any philosophically interesting account.

He is trying hard to deflate the presence of emergence in phenomena to make it more palatable for those still stuck in the reductionist paradigm. But my personal view is that the consequences of accepting emergence are neither as mundane nor as trivial a thing as he often tries to make it seem in this book. He does himself acknowledge the deepness of this mystery of the natural order and its tendency for emergence, yet I still feel he is clinging to something akin to the turtles all the way down mentality, except in his case, it is physical things all the way down, whatever that may mean.

[Aymen Shamoon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have seen the idea that organising principles or emergent phenomena is as fundamental if not more fundamental than reductionist phenomena in physics articulated before but never quite forcefully. Dr. Laughlin goes further than most condensed matter physicists and argues that not only is reductionism losing relevance, but perhaps one shouldn't consider reductionism fundamental.

There are chapters which are very interesting, and the author's writing style is fun, but sometimes the joy of the writing hides serious arguments and explanations that should've been made but get supplanted by analogies and metaphors, making the actual subject matter a tease. Oftentimes, Dr. Laughlin would say something which, if followed through to the promise, would fundamentally alter the way you think about physics, but the follow-up explanation either never comes or is briefly mentioned, followed by analogies to politics, literature, his own life or just humour. The chapters sometimes feel a stream of consciousness-y. Each stream is great to read, but if you don't carefully revisit and re-read part of the book, you'll miss how each paragraph follows the last one. I may be wrong but perhaps Dr. Lauglin would've better served by a more aggressive editor. I give the book a 4/5.

[cooldash · Rating 1 out of 5]

Got through three quarters of this book. Laughlin has an interesting thesis: that reductionism in physics in unproductive, and that research should focus on the emergent properties of matter instead. However, the delivery is poor, filled with boomer-esque one liners, anecdotal tangents, and, bizarrely, an apparent dismissal of the role chemistry plays in science.

As a chemist, I was dismayed, but not really surprised, that such a great physicist was so biased against the 'central science'. Laughlin would have not made such strides in his field if chemists hadn't laid the groundwork for his research, and his lack of graciousness in this regard, mingled with woodsy asides and poor jokes, makes me think of him as a sort of elderly Sheldon Cooper with a penchant for hiking.

"The rest is just chemistry" sounds like a grumpy millionaire complaining about accountants. Let's not forget what kind of people invented electricity, Robert. You would have had to have written your little magnum opus by hand and candlelight if it weren't for chemists and engineers.

[Sandy Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was an interesting book, but difficult for me to follow at times because of my limited knowledge of physics. It is pretty clear that the author thinks modern physics has lost its way by taking a reductionist approach rather than focusing on emergence. Unfortunately, his argument assumes familiarity with both of these approaches and the examples he uses. So reading the book is a little like listening to someone on one side of a family feud and not knowing the backstory. The events and arguments made are interesting, but you realize there is no way you are going to be able to understand the the history of the feud.

[James Calgary · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was frustrated during my reading of this book. I think I understand his central idea. However, his long personal stories sent me off track. So did the many scientific examples that he chose to speak on. Yes, they were interesting but the average reader does not have sufficient scientific knowledge to connect those examples with his prime idea. This is what frustrated me because I think he has a point. Oh how I wish he would try again, it would be worth it.

[Brad Mundy · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you’re interested in physics, you should read this book. The author can definitely get into complex topics but generally provides good analogies to help you grasp his meaning. He intersperses his own anecdotes/jokes/quotes to lighten the reader’s mental load. His common sense conclusions about the future of science ring true for me.