What do you think?
Rate this book
Quantum Reality
Quantum mechanics is an extraordinarily successful scientific theory. It is also completely mad. Although the theory quite obviously works, it leaves us chasing ghosts and phantoms; particles that are waves and waves that are particles; cats that are at once both alive and dead; and lots of seemingly spooky goings-on. But if we're prepared to be a little more specific about what we mean when we talk about 'reality' and a little more circumspect in the way we think a
scientific theory might represent such a reality, then all the mystery goes away. This shows that the choice we face is actually a philosophical one.
Here, Jim Baggott provides a quick but comprehensive introduction to quantum mechanics for the general reader, and explains what makes this theory so very different from the rest. He also explores the processes involved in developing scientific theories and explains how these lead to different philosophical positions, essential if we are to understand the nature of the great debate between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein. Moving forwards, Baggott then provides a comprehensive guide to
attempts to determine what the theory actually means, from the Copenhagen interpretation to many worlds and the multiverse.
Richard Feynman once declared that 'nobody understands quantum mechanics'. This book will tell you why.
scientific theory might represent such a reality, then all the mystery goes away. This shows that the choice we face is actually a philosophical one.
Here, Jim Baggott provides a quick but comprehensive introduction to quantum mechanics for the general reader, and explains what makes this theory so very different from the rest. He also explores the processes involved in developing scientific theories and explains how these lead to different philosophical positions, essential if we are to understand the nature of the great debate between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein. Moving forwards, Baggott then provides a comprehensive guide to
attempts to determine what the theory actually means, from the Copenhagen interpretation to many worlds and the multiverse.
Richard Feynman once declared that 'nobody understands quantum mechanics'. This book will tell you why.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published June 25, 2020
97 people are currently reading
2713 people want to read
About the author
Jim Baggott
24 books147 followersJim Baggott completed his doctorate in physical chemistry at the University of Oxford and his postgraduate research at Stanford University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
October 28, 2020
At one time it was popular amongst some physicists to be extremely critical of philosophy. For example, in their book The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow aimed to answer a series of what have long been seen as philosophical (such as 'Why are we here?', 'What is the nature of reality?' and 'Did the universe need a creator?') by ignoring philosophy and taking a purely scientific viewpoint. Philosophy, those authors assured us, like religion, was now dead.
I'm afraid Hawking and Mlodinow failed to convince, which is why it's perfectly reasonable for Jim Baggott to come up with a book on a physics topic, what 'lies beneath' quantum theory, and, along the way, to spend a fair amount of the book introducing philosophical concepts put across by philosophers.
Quantum physics is arguably unique amongst the hard sciences in having a range of interpretations that run from 'We don't know what is happening and never will' (typified in the response 'Shut up and calculate') all the way through to detailed interpretations which do away with some of the problems we face in the traditional approach, at the cost of introducing a whole new series of problems, such as the extravagant requirement for the 'many worlds' interpretation that there are vast numbers of parallel universes.
Baggott is a master of taking complex concepts and making them surprisingly accessible. For much of what's difficult and confusing about quantum physics interpretations he succeeds in doing this admirably. For example, he gives the first explanation I've ever read of one of the more philosophical interpretations of quantum theory, quantum Bayesianism, or QBism, which I found in the slightest bit comprehensible. For me, the book was worth reading for that alone.
I also found that Baggott gave fascinating details on the philosophical side I was unaware of, from the philosophers of science like Karl Popper to the hardcore philosophers behind some of the concepts required to understand quantum interpretations, such as Immanuel Kant. Personally, I've never been hugely bothered about philosophy, but it is simply impossible to really dig into these interpretations without taking philosophy on board, so this was great.
What I thought was a little less accessible was the descriptions of quantum phenomena. These were illustrated with little pictograms which I found hard to follow, particularly as the print was so small I couldn't read the text. Sometimes, in the effort to avoid getting too technical - for example in describing what was meant by an operator and an expectation value - there was insufficient detail to get your head around the concept. And I did find a metaphor repeatedly used involving an island of metaphysical reality, the sea of representation, the ship of science and the land of empirical reality (with Scylla and Charybdis thrown in, which I can't really remember what they were intended to be) more confusing than helpful. But these are small details that didn't prevent the book being fascinating.
Throughout, Baggott is approachable and often has a wonderful turn of phrase (I loved, for example, the description of Paul Feyerabend as 'a Loki among philosophers of science'). In the end, a lot of the tension in the book is between realist interpretations ('There is something underneath that we could in principle uncover') and anti-realist ('It is impossible to ever discover a reality beneath - shut up and calculate'). As someone who feels more comfortable in the anti-realist camp, I couldn't agree with Baggott's assessment that realist interpretations are 'more palatable' - I think it's useful to read Philip Ball's Beyond Weird as well for a contrast - but I very much enjoyed getting a better background on the different possibilities.
I'm afraid Hawking and Mlodinow failed to convince, which is why it's perfectly reasonable for Jim Baggott to come up with a book on a physics topic, what 'lies beneath' quantum theory, and, along the way, to spend a fair amount of the book introducing philosophical concepts put across by philosophers.
Quantum physics is arguably unique amongst the hard sciences in having a range of interpretations that run from 'We don't know what is happening and never will' (typified in the response 'Shut up and calculate') all the way through to detailed interpretations which do away with some of the problems we face in the traditional approach, at the cost of introducing a whole new series of problems, such as the extravagant requirement for the 'many worlds' interpretation that there are vast numbers of parallel universes.
Baggott is a master of taking complex concepts and making them surprisingly accessible. For much of what's difficult and confusing about quantum physics interpretations he succeeds in doing this admirably. For example, he gives the first explanation I've ever read of one of the more philosophical interpretations of quantum theory, quantum Bayesianism, or QBism, which I found in the slightest bit comprehensible. For me, the book was worth reading for that alone.
I also found that Baggott gave fascinating details on the philosophical side I was unaware of, from the philosophers of science like Karl Popper to the hardcore philosophers behind some of the concepts required to understand quantum interpretations, such as Immanuel Kant. Personally, I've never been hugely bothered about philosophy, but it is simply impossible to really dig into these interpretations without taking philosophy on board, so this was great.
What I thought was a little less accessible was the descriptions of quantum phenomena. These were illustrated with little pictograms which I found hard to follow, particularly as the print was so small I couldn't read the text. Sometimes, in the effort to avoid getting too technical - for example in describing what was meant by an operator and an expectation value - there was insufficient detail to get your head around the concept. And I did find a metaphor repeatedly used involving an island of metaphysical reality, the sea of representation, the ship of science and the land of empirical reality (with Scylla and Charybdis thrown in, which I can't really remember what they were intended to be) more confusing than helpful. But these are small details that didn't prevent the book being fascinating.
Throughout, Baggott is approachable and often has a wonderful turn of phrase (I loved, for example, the description of Paul Feyerabend as 'a Loki among philosophers of science'). In the end, a lot of the tension in the book is between realist interpretations ('There is something underneath that we could in principle uncover') and anti-realist ('It is impossible to ever discover a reality beneath - shut up and calculate'). As someone who feels more comfortable in the anti-realist camp, I couldn't agree with Baggott's assessment that realist interpretations are 'more palatable' - I think it's useful to read Philip Ball's Beyond Weird as well for a contrast - but I very much enjoyed getting a better background on the different possibilities.
December 21, 2022
رحلة شيقة جدًا في رحاب فيزياء الكم. لا يُعتبر هذا الكتاب مجرد عرض لتطور ما حدث في حقل فيزياء الكم، بل هو يُقدِّم بحثًا مهمًا في الطريقة التي يحاول بها العلماء علاج المشكلات التي يواجهونها. طرحت فيزياء الكم إشكاليات نابعة في الأساس من نظرة العلماء لمعنى ما يتوصلون إليه من نتائج ومعادلات. بعض العلماء يؤمنون بأن ما يتوصلون إليه هو تمثيل لحقيقة موجودة فعليًا، والبعض الآخر يرونها مجرد وسائل لاستخراج نتائج معينة، ولكن ليس هناك وجود حقيقي لهذه الجسيمات ولكل افتراضاتهم. هناك نظرات أخرى أيضًا عرضها الكتاب. الرائع فيه هو أنه بيَّن كيف أن هذه النظرات المختلفة هي السبب الرئيس لخلاف العلماء. من هذا المنطلق نفهم تحديدًا لماذا لم يقبل أينشتاين التفسير الذي قدمه هايزنبرج وزملاؤه للكم وقال جملته الشهيرة: "الله لا يلعب بالنرد". معلوماتي القديمة كانت محدودة جدًا، وأنا عمومًا خبرتي محدودة تمامًا في هذه المجالات العلمية، وكنت أظن أن الأمر انتهى عند هذا الحد، ولكن اتضح أن رفض أينشتاين هذا شكّل أحد الأسباب التي حركت الأمور قدمًا بحثًا عن تفسير لإشكاليات فيزياء وميكانيكا الكم.
مثَّلت الفصول الأولى التي رصد فيها الكاتب العلاقة بين العلم والميتافيزيقا أهمية خاصة بالنسبة لي، وتقريبًا طوال الكتاب يرصد الفلسفة والنظرة الميتافيزيقية الكامنة خلف أي نظرية علمية، مما أكسب البحث ثراءً.
يكتسب هذا الكتاب أهمية خاصة بعد جائزة نوبل الأخيرة في الفيزياء وما طُرِح منذ زمن طويل حول التفسير الشبحي للذرات وما إلى ذلك.
الترجمة ممتازة فعلا. أعتقد أن مستوى أحمد سمير سعد قد تقدّم بشكل ملحوظ في هذا الكتاب. أنا أتابع ترجماته ومؤلفاته بالطبع، وشعرت شخصيًا أن هذه الترجمة هي الأفضل. لم يستوقفني شيء طوال الكتاب تقريبًا من حيث الصياغة.
باختصار هذا كتاب شديد الأهمية لأنه لا يقتصر على رصد التطورات العلمية في حقل معين، بل يناقش الأطر النظرية والفلسفية الكامنة خلفها، كما أن لكاتبه رأي واضح يوضِّحه ويستعرض موقفه، وفي الآن ذاته لا يجعل رأيه يخل بموضوعية عرضه. هذه نوعية تستحق القراءة فعلا.
مثَّلت الفصول الأولى التي رصد فيها الكاتب العلاقة بين العلم والميتافيزيقا أهمية خاصة بالنسبة لي، وتقريبًا طوال الكتاب يرصد الفلسفة والنظرة الميتافيزيقية الكامنة خلف أي نظرية علمية، مما أكسب البحث ثراءً.
يكتسب هذا الكتاب أهمية خاصة بعد جائزة نوبل الأخيرة في الفيزياء وما طُرِح منذ زمن طويل حول التفسير الشبحي للذرات وما إلى ذلك.
الترجمة ممتازة فعلا. أعتقد أن مستوى أحمد سمير سعد قد تقدّم بشكل ملحوظ في هذا الكتاب. أنا أتابع ترجماته ومؤلفاته بالطبع، وشعرت شخصيًا أن هذه الترجمة هي الأفضل. لم يستوقفني شيء طوال الكتاب تقريبًا من حيث الصياغة.
باختصار هذا كتاب شديد الأهمية لأنه لا يقتصر على رصد التطورات العلمية في حقل معين، بل يناقش الأطر النظرية والفلسفية الكامنة خلفها، كما أن لكاتبه رأي واضح يوضِّحه ويستعرض موقفه، وفي الآن ذاته لا يجعل رأيه يخل بموضوعية عرضه. هذه نوعية تستحق القراءة فعلا.
March 15, 2023
بين العلم التجريبي والميتافيزيقا يرتحل جيم باجوت باحثاً عن المعنى الواقعي لميكانيكا الكم، مرواً بنظريات علمية عدة مع تداخلاتها مع الفلسفة . كيف تصف تمثلاتنا وتفاعلنا وتجاربنا الواقع ، وعلاقة كل ذلك في فهم الدالة الموجية وحقيقة الواقع والطريقة التي نتمثله بها . ميكانيكا الكم والأكون المتعددة ، وهل ثمة من علاقة وربط موضوعي أثبت بالتجربة ام مجرد نظريات مبنية على الميتافيزيقيا ؟ برأيه هي أحد التكهنات الميتافيزيقية الغير قابلة للاختبار. يجادل جيم باجوت في أن العديد من أفكار الفيزياء النظرية الحديثة غريبة جدًا وبعيدة عن الواقع التجريبي لدرجة أنها بالكاد تعتبر علمًا. وكما يشير ، فإن هذا النوع من "فيزياء الحكايات الخرافية" يباع جيدًا للجمهور الأوسع ، غالبًا في الكتب ذات العناوين والعناوين الفرعية التي تحرف بشكل صارخ ما تدور حوله الكتب حقًا. ك نظرية الأوتار ، والتناظر الفائق ، وميكانيكا الكم للعوالم المتعددة ، ونظريات الأكوان المتعددة ، والمبدأ الأنثروبي.
يتحدث في مادة الكتاب باستفاضة عن إشكالية الأكوان المتعددة من وجهة نظر منهجية.
"The problem with “multiverse theories”: they’re just not science.
This admittedly catchy idea is undermining the integrity of physics." —Jim Baggott
يقول في ذلك : "لا يتمتع الكون المتعدد بنفس حالة النظريات العلمية الراسخة المألوفة مثل النسبية وميكانيكا الكم. لكن في تصريحاتهم العامة ، غالبًا ما يفشل منظرو الأكوان المتعددة في توضيح ذلك. ثم يتم تضليل الجمهور للاعتقاد بأن هذه الأشياء هي علم مقبول ، وهو وضع يجب أن يضر في النهاية بإدراك الجمهور وقبول سلطته. والأمر الأكثر إثارة للقلق هو أن بعض منظري الأكوان المتعددة يبدون حريصين على إعادة تعريف ماهية العلم. إنهم يريدون التخلص من المنهج العلمي ، وإضعاف الصلة المهمة للغاية بين النظرية والحقائق التجريبية ، ودفع الطلب على الأدلة بقوة إلى الخلفية. قد يناسب هذا أجنداتهم الشخصية ، لكنه يدفعنا بلا هوادة نحو تناقض لفظي وهو "علم ما بعد التجريبية".
….،خط الدفاع الأمامي هو الاعتراف بأن الكون المتعدد مثير للجدل. إذا تمكنا من قبول هذا ، فسيصبح من السهل التساؤل ، وإذا لزم الأمر تحدي أولئك الذين يسعون للترويج له. القيام بذلك لا يتطلب درجة الدكتوراه في علم الكونيات الفيزيائية أو فيزياء الجسيمات. أعتقد أننا نحتاج فقط إلى الانتباه للاقتباس من ألبرت أينشتاين:
عندما أوضح أن "شغف الفهم "يقود إلى توهم أن الإنسان قادر على فهم العالم الموضوعي بشكل عقلاني عن طريق التفكير المحض، من دون أي أسس تجريبية - أي طريق الميتافيزيقيا باختصار."
يواصل آينشتاين: " أعتقد أن كل منظر أمين هو ميتافيزيقي مروض، لا يهم كيف يتوهم نفسه " وضعياً" مخلصًا. يعتقد الميتافيزيقي أن البسيط منطقياً واقعي كذلك. يعتقد الميتافيزيقي المروض أن البسيط منطقياً لا يتغلغل بالكامل بالضرورة في الواقع الذي نختبره، بل يمكن "فهم" الخبرات الحسية كلها في المجمل على أساس نظام مفاهيمي مبني على مقدمات بسيطة للغاية."
رائع !
يتحدث في مادة الكتاب باستفاضة عن إشكالية الأكوان المتعددة من وجهة نظر منهجية.
"The problem with “multiverse theories”: they’re just not science.
This admittedly catchy idea is undermining the integrity of physics." —Jim Baggott
يقول في ذلك : "لا يتمتع الكون المتعدد بنفس حالة النظريات العلمية الراسخة المألوفة مثل النسبية وميكانيكا الكم. لكن في تصريحاتهم العامة ، غالبًا ما يفشل منظرو الأكوان المتعددة في توضيح ذلك. ثم يتم تضليل الجمهور للاعتقاد بأن هذه الأشياء هي علم مقبول ، وهو وضع يجب أن يضر في النهاية بإدراك الجمهور وقبول سلطته. والأمر الأكثر إثارة للقلق هو أن بعض منظري الأكوان المتعددة يبدون حريصين على إعادة تعريف ماهية العلم. إنهم يريدون التخلص من المنهج العلمي ، وإضعاف الصلة المهمة للغاية بين النظرية والحقائق التجريبية ، ودفع الطلب على الأدلة بقوة إلى الخلفية. قد يناسب هذا أجنداتهم الشخصية ، لكنه يدفعنا بلا هوادة نحو تناقض لفظي وهو "علم ما بعد التجريبية".
….،خط الدفاع الأمامي هو الاعتراف بأن الكون المتعدد مثير للجدل. إذا تمكنا من قبول هذا ، فسيصبح من السهل التساؤل ، وإذا لزم الأمر تحدي أولئك الذين يسعون للترويج له. القيام بذلك لا يتطلب درجة الدكتوراه في علم الكونيات الفيزيائية أو فيزياء الجسيمات. أعتقد أننا نحتاج فقط إلى الانتباه للاقتباس من ألبرت أينشتاين:
عندما أوضح أن "شغف الفهم "يقود إلى توهم أن الإنسان قادر على فهم العالم الموضوعي بشكل عقلاني عن طريق التفكير المحض، من دون أي أسس تجريبية - أي طريق الميتافيزيقيا باختصار."
يواصل آينشتاين: " أعتقد أن كل منظر أمين هو ميتافيزيقي مروض، لا يهم كيف يتوهم نفسه " وضعياً" مخلصًا. يعتقد الميتافيزيقي أن البسيط منطقياً واقعي كذلك. يعتقد الميتافيزيقي المروض أن البسيط منطقياً لا يتغلغل بالكامل بالضرورة في الواقع الذي نختبره، بل يمكن "فهم" الخبرات الحسية كلها في المجمل على أساس نظام مفاهيمي مبني على مقدمات بسيطة للغاية."
رائع !
October 15, 2023
If you are going to read just one book about quantum physics, this better be the one. Jim Baggott is a physicist and an excellent science popularizer. He knows what he's talking about and how to best talk about it. One of the features of this book that I really appreciated is the fact that Jim takes philosophy seriously, and knowledgeably bounces back and forth between science and philosophy, explaining to the reader that one simply cannot do science without metaphysics. Then again, he is also critical of a number of contemporary scientists (and he names names!) who are a bit too enamored of metaphysical speculation unaccompanied by any contact with the empirical. Jim claims that this is bad science, and bad for science, in terms of the credibility of the whole enterprise. I think he's exactly right. One irony he doesn't mention: some of the culprits (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss) are actually disdainful of philosophy, apparently not realizing that that's what they are doing. Badly. The book ends with a very helpful general discussion of the major ways to understand quantum mechanics and their implications. Personally, and even though Jim himself doesn't subscribe to this position, he convinced me that the anti-realists have a better argument, especially those that deny the physical reality of the wave function. Regardless, fascinating stuff, and Jim is an excellent guide to it!
June 14, 2023
Labai faina knyga ne tiek apie kvantinę fiziką, kiek apie jos interpretacijas ir filosofines prielaidas, slypinčias po įvairiais požiūriais.
Dabar papasakosiu, ką iš ten supratau, neatmesdama galimybės, kad galbūt klaidingai:)
Dalelė ar, na, tas kvantinis daiktas, juda erdvėje kaip banga. Jos judėjimą galima apskaičiuoti su Šriodingerio (sori, rašysiu taip, net neketinu copy-pastinti umliauto) bangos funkcijos lygtimi.
Šriodingeris įsivaizdavo banginę funkciją kaip tikrą “medžiagos bangą”, bet Bornas pastebėjo, kad banga nurodo tikimybes rasti dalelę tam tikroje vietoje: bangos “viršūnių” vertės, pakeltos kvadratu, nurodo tikimybę, kad dalelė bus rasta būtent ten. Ar tai reiškia, kad “banguodama” dalelė buvo keliose vietose vienu metu? Ar kad ji buvo kažkur konkrečiai, bet mes to nežinojome, kol neišmatavome? Berods, Bornas ir Von Neumanas sakė, kad tokia sąvoka, kaip “dalelės vieta” judant bangai neturi prasmės. Einšteinas sakė, pala, gal dar paaiškės koks mechanizmas, kuris tai paaiškintų.
Čia atsiranda dar viena problema – po to, kai dalelė jau “rasta”, ji nebeatvirsta atgal į tikimybinę judančią bangą. Kas čia atsitiko? Kodėl banga sugriuvo? Ar banga buvo tikra, jei taip, kas ją privertė sugriūti? Ar banga – tik naudingas būdas mums apskaičiuoti tikimybes? Jei taip, ar už to kažkas slypi? Vis tiek cekava.
Heisenbergas iš pradžių manė, kad neužtikrintumas išmatuojant tiek bangos/dalelės greitį, tiek vietą, kyla iš nerangių mūsų instrumentų. Kaip bepažiūrėsi, mes vis tiek gyvenam klasikinės mechanikos pasaulyje ir naudojam tiek jos instrumentus, tiek jos sąvokas. Jis dar turėjo viltį, kad išeis kažkaip patobulinti mūsų instrumentus, bet Bohras sakė, ne, tai fundamentali riba mūsų žinojimui, ir galiausiai įtikino Heisenbergą, pasikvietęs dar ir Pauli. Visi trys jie nusprendė, kad kvantinė fizika yra “pabaigta”, t.y. nebegalim ten kažko dar gilesnio atrasti, ir pavadino tai Kopenhagos interpretacija.
Einšteinui tai nepatiko. Tiek ta interpretacija, tiek tai, kad bangai “sugriuvus” mes iškart gaunam informaciją apie kitas pasaulio vietas (t.y. kad ten nėra dalelės), ir ta info perduodama didesniu negu šviesos greičiu. Arba – jei entanglinam dvi daleles su priešingais parametrais, tarkim, sukiniais (ten tų parametrų yra daugiau, bet toliau kaip pavyzdžius naudosiu sukinius, nes juos geriausiai atsimenu), paskui jas išskirstom ir apskaičiuojam vienos sukinį, iškart žinom, kad kitos bus priešingas, nesvarbu, kur ji bebūtų. Šriodingeris palaikė Einšteiną – jei dalelės entanglintos tol, kol mes nesužinome rezultato, tai ar nėra ir matavimo aparatas entanglintas su jomis kartu, kol neįėjom į kambarį ir nepažiūrėjom? O jei prie aparato prijungta katė, ar ji irgi entanglinta?
Man atrodo visai fainas “arogancijos” klausimas – viena vertus, ar nėra arogantiška teigti, jog viską jau atradom, kad jei kažko nesuprantam, tai ten nieko ir nėra? Kita vertus, ar ne tiek pat arogantiškas reikalavimas, kad gamta kalbėtų mums suprantama kalba?
Taigi šioje knygoje pasakojama apie įvairius būdus galvoti apie kvantinius reiškinius: nuo anti-realistinių (mūsų matavimai veikia, bet tai nereiškia, kad jie kažką pasako apie tikrovę) iki realistinių (banginė funkcija tikra). Autorius papasakoja argumentus (tiesa, nėra itin daug paaiškinimų apie kvantinę fiziką – daugiau apie eksperimentus ar idėjas, kaip suvokti vieną ar kitą daiktą) ir atitinkamus jų trūkumus. Iš esmės anti-realistinių teorijų trūkumas tas, kad jos truputį nuviliančios. Juk vis tiek norisi galvoti, kad kažką sužinojai, ir kad sužinojai apie TIKRĄ dalyką, ne šiaip “fizikai matuoja tokius dalykus, nes tokie matuojasi, ar kažkas už to slypi – nežinia”. Realistinių teorijų trūkumas – kad norint paaiškinti, kas vyksta, reikia prigalvoti papildomų dalykų: “tuščių bangų”, “quantum loops”, ar netgi visą multivisatą.
Pabandysiu papasakoti apie keletą, bent jau ką pavyko suprasti:
Carlo Rovelli, kurio knyga Laiko tvarka yra lietuviškai (visai faina, bet ne tiek daug paaiškinanti, kiek man norėtųsi), instrumentalistas – neneigia kvantinių reiškinių realumo, bet sako, kad tokie dalelės parametrai, kaip sukinys, prasmę įgyja tik santykyje su kitais elementais, pvz matavimo aparatu. Panašiai būtų jei monetai dar nenukritus, herbas ar skaičius neegzistuotų kaip atskiri dalykai – jie pasimatytų tik santykyje su delnu, žeme, stalu ar pan. Taip ir banginė funkcija aprašo dalelės judėjimą, o kodėl “iškrito” toks ir anoks “skaičius” – ne mūsų reikalas.
“Informacinė” teorija – irgi panašiai instrumentalistinė. Ji sako, kad iš visų eksperimentų mes gauname tik informaciją, kurią deriname su jau turima informacija, t.y. kad visas pasaulio pažinimas vyksta mūsų (kaip žmonijos) galvose, o ne santykyje su “tikru pasauliu”.
“Spooky action at a distance”, kur išmatavus vienos entangled dalelės sukinį, iškart sužinomas kitos, irgi pasidaro menka problema šiuo požiūriu – jei primetam, kad sukinys yra tiesiog būdas mums rinkti informaciją apie dalelę, o ne jos vidinis parametras. “Jei paskaitau straipsnį apie Kiniją, mano informacija apie šią šalį irgi tuoj pat pasikeičia, ir nereikia jokio spooky action at the distance” – sako šio požiūrio adeptai.
Kai kurie suvokia informaciją kaip fizinį dydį, taigi realiai egzistuojančią pasaulyje kaip fotonai aar kaštonai, o ne tik kaip būdą koduoti žinias.
Tada dar yra “Consistent Histories” interpretacija, kurią aš bandžiau suprasti, bet nesupratau:)
Autorius sako: “Kopenhagos interpretacija dėl kvantinio pasaulio nepasiekiamumo kaltina klasikinę mūsų kalbą ir techniką. Rovellio santykio interpretacija kaltę perkelia poreikiui įsteigti santykį su kvantinėmis būsenomis, kad jos įgautų kokią nors fizinę reikšmę. Informacija paremtos interpretacijos elgiasi daugmaž taip pat. “Consistent” arba “Decoherent Histories” interpretacijose dėl to kalta fundamentaliai probabilistinė visų kvantinių reiškinių prigimtis ir taisyklės nustatyti tinkamą pagrindą nebuvimas.“ Tai va.
Tai čia buvo instrumentalistinės teorijos. Realistinės teorijos ne tokios populiarios ir sėkmingos, bet užtat jos prigalvoja ne tik įdomių prielaidų, bet ir eksperimentų, kuriais galima jas patikrinti – ir taip sužinoti daugiau!
Štai toks Bellas svarstė apie “spooky action at the distance” ir galvojo – o kame čia problema? Jei dalelės buvo entanglintos ir išsiskirdamos jos įgijo priešingus sukinius, tai apskaičiavę vieną iškart sužinome ir kitą, nes ŽINOM, kad jis bus priešingas. Čia taip pat kaip pamatęs profesoriaus, kuris visada mūvi skirtingų spalvų kojines, vieną koją su rožine kojine iškart žinai, kad kita kojinė bus ne rožinė. Tada Bellas sugalvojo gudrių eksperimentų su pasisukančiais magnetais (eksperimentai knygoje apibūdinti) patikrinti prielaidai, kad dalelės savo parametrus įgijo išsiskirdamos. Ir pasirodo, kad NE – rezultatai labiau consistent su tuo, kad viena dalelė įgijo savo parametrus po to, kai buvo išmatuota kita, t.y. kad tik tada sugriūna jų bendra banginė funkcija, kad ir kaip toli jos būtų viena nuo kitos. Na, dabar žinom. Ačiū, Bellai!
Man pačiai labai patiko dekoherencijos sąvoka ir jos interpretacijos. Trumpai tariant, taip: jei entanglinam krūvą dalelių ir jas praleidžiam pro matavimo aparatą, jų sukiniai išsidėlios 50:50 principu. Ką tai primena? Termodinaminę entropiją! Kitaip tariant, kad sistema linkusi nusistovėti į didesnę netvarką ir vienodėti, kaip kad įjungus radiatorių šiluma, dalelėms atsitiktinai besidaužant vienoms į kitas, nusistovi panaši per visą kambarį.
Gal čia ir yra priežastis, kodėl išmatavus daleles sugriūna jų banginė funkcija? – ėmė svarstyti fizikai. Mūsų aparatai klasikiniai, bet tuo pat metu sudaryti irgi iš kvantinių objektų, tik jų daug ir kol dalelė per juos praeina, jos banginė funkcija sugriūna atsitiktinai, bet į tikėtiną būseną. PLIUS natūraliai į superpoziciją ji ir nebegrįžta, kaip sudužęs kiaušinis atgal nesusirenka savaime, nors teoriškai niekas tam netrukdo. Taigi – galvojo kai kurie – kuo objektas mažesnis ir kuo mažiau sąveikauja su kitais, tuo ilgiau gali išlaikyti benginę funkciją, o žiurkės ar riešutai per dideli ir juose sąveikų per daug, kad įeitų į superpoziciją.
Bellas sakė, nu ir kas, vis tiek tai nepaaiškina mechanizmo, kodėl konkreti dalelė turi vienus parametrus, o ne kitus.
Von Neumanas į pirmą planą ištraukė stebėtojo protą: gal banga sugriūna ne santykyje su matavimo aparatu, o kai yra užregistruojama stebėtojo sąmonėje? Bet neskubėkime degtis smilkalų ir mautis spalvotų kelnių, nes čia interpretacijų irgi yra įvairių ir ne visos jos durnos, bet visos kelia klausimų. Kokios sąmonės reikia? Ar banginė funkcija sugriūva, kai į ją žiūri šuo? O jei į ją žiūri kitas žmogus ir paskui tau papasakoja rezultatą? Jei laikome, kad kitas žmogus įeina į entanglement ir banginė funkcija sugriūva tik užregistravus rezultatą TAVO prote, tai veda prie solipsizmo ir abejonės kitų protų egzistavimu. Jei ne, tai reiškia, kad sąveika su PIRMOJO stebėtojo protu sugriovė banginę funkciją. Kas tada tokio yra prote? Kai kurie tyrėjai ieško to mechanizmo smegenyse, t.y. kažkokiose mikrotubulėse, bet (dar) nerado.
Dar kiti (pirmiausia Everettas) sako: kam mum spręsti bangos sugriuvimo problemą? Gal ji visai nesugriūva, išsilaiko superpozicijoje – mes stebime vienokį sukinį, o kitas išlieka, tiesiog yra mums neprieinamas / nepastebimas. Tada klausimas: jei banginė funkcija neišsiskirsto, kas tada išsiskirsto? Mūsų protas? Mūsų pasaulio linijos? Visata? Ar kiekveinąkart atlikus matavimą visata suskyla, o gal jų nuo pat pradžių buvo begalybė, tik kitose užfiksuoti kiti rezultatai?
Šios knygos autorius skeptiškas “many worlds” ar multivisatos interpretacijų atžvilgiu, na, nes neįmanoma patikrinti, ar jos egzistuoja. Truputį didelė kaina, sako autorius, atsikratyti banginės funkcijos sugriuvimo, bet vietoj to prigaminti begalybę visatų?
Baigdamas autorius prisipažįsta anksčiau linkęs prie realizmo, bet laikui bėgant besidarantis vis labiau instrumentalistas. Tačiau čia pat pripažįsta manąs, jog kvantinė fizika “nebaigta” – juk ji neįtraukia gravitacijos! Ir čia pat pamini savo mėgstamiausią teoriją kandidatę – quantum loop gravity.
Dabar papasakosiu, ką iš ten supratau, neatmesdama galimybės, kad galbūt klaidingai:)
Dalelė ar, na, tas kvantinis daiktas, juda erdvėje kaip banga. Jos judėjimą galima apskaičiuoti su Šriodingerio (sori, rašysiu taip, net neketinu copy-pastinti umliauto) bangos funkcijos lygtimi.
Šriodingeris įsivaizdavo banginę funkciją kaip tikrą “medžiagos bangą”, bet Bornas pastebėjo, kad banga nurodo tikimybes rasti dalelę tam tikroje vietoje: bangos “viršūnių” vertės, pakeltos kvadratu, nurodo tikimybę, kad dalelė bus rasta būtent ten. Ar tai reiškia, kad “banguodama” dalelė buvo keliose vietose vienu metu? Ar kad ji buvo kažkur konkrečiai, bet mes to nežinojome, kol neišmatavome? Berods, Bornas ir Von Neumanas sakė, kad tokia sąvoka, kaip “dalelės vieta” judant bangai neturi prasmės. Einšteinas sakė, pala, gal dar paaiškės koks mechanizmas, kuris tai paaiškintų.
Čia atsiranda dar viena problema – po to, kai dalelė jau “rasta”, ji nebeatvirsta atgal į tikimybinę judančią bangą. Kas čia atsitiko? Kodėl banga sugriuvo? Ar banga buvo tikra, jei taip, kas ją privertė sugriūti? Ar banga – tik naudingas būdas mums apskaičiuoti tikimybes? Jei taip, ar už to kažkas slypi? Vis tiek cekava.
Heisenbergas iš pradžių manė, kad neužtikrintumas išmatuojant tiek bangos/dalelės greitį, tiek vietą, kyla iš nerangių mūsų instrumentų. Kaip bepažiūrėsi, mes vis tiek gyvenam klasikinės mechanikos pasaulyje ir naudojam tiek jos instrumentus, tiek jos sąvokas. Jis dar turėjo viltį, kad išeis kažkaip patobulinti mūsų instrumentus, bet Bohras sakė, ne, tai fundamentali riba mūsų žinojimui, ir galiausiai įtikino Heisenbergą, pasikvietęs dar ir Pauli. Visi trys jie nusprendė, kad kvantinė fizika yra “pabaigta”, t.y. nebegalim ten kažko dar gilesnio atrasti, ir pavadino tai Kopenhagos interpretacija.
Einšteinui tai nepatiko. Tiek ta interpretacija, tiek tai, kad bangai “sugriuvus” mes iškart gaunam informaciją apie kitas pasaulio vietas (t.y. kad ten nėra dalelės), ir ta info perduodama didesniu negu šviesos greičiu. Arba – jei entanglinam dvi daleles su priešingais parametrais, tarkim, sukiniais (ten tų parametrų yra daugiau, bet toliau kaip pavyzdžius naudosiu sukinius, nes juos geriausiai atsimenu), paskui jas išskirstom ir apskaičiuojam vienos sukinį, iškart žinom, kad kitos bus priešingas, nesvarbu, kur ji bebūtų. Šriodingeris palaikė Einšteiną – jei dalelės entanglintos tol, kol mes nesužinome rezultato, tai ar nėra ir matavimo aparatas entanglintas su jomis kartu, kol neįėjom į kambarį ir nepažiūrėjom? O jei prie aparato prijungta katė, ar ji irgi entanglinta?
Man atrodo visai fainas “arogancijos” klausimas – viena vertus, ar nėra arogantiška teigti, jog viską jau atradom, kad jei kažko nesuprantam, tai ten nieko ir nėra? Kita vertus, ar ne tiek pat arogantiškas reikalavimas, kad gamta kalbėtų mums suprantama kalba?
Taigi šioje knygoje pasakojama apie įvairius būdus galvoti apie kvantinius reiškinius: nuo anti-realistinių (mūsų matavimai veikia, bet tai nereiškia, kad jie kažką pasako apie tikrovę) iki realistinių (banginė funkcija tikra). Autorius papasakoja argumentus (tiesa, nėra itin daug paaiškinimų apie kvantinę fiziką – daugiau apie eksperimentus ar idėjas, kaip suvokti vieną ar kitą daiktą) ir atitinkamus jų trūkumus. Iš esmės anti-realistinių teorijų trūkumas tas, kad jos truputį nuviliančios. Juk vis tiek norisi galvoti, kad kažką sužinojai, ir kad sužinojai apie TIKRĄ dalyką, ne šiaip “fizikai matuoja tokius dalykus, nes tokie matuojasi, ar kažkas už to slypi – nežinia”. Realistinių teorijų trūkumas – kad norint paaiškinti, kas vyksta, reikia prigalvoti papildomų dalykų: “tuščių bangų”, “quantum loops”, ar netgi visą multivisatą.
Pabandysiu papasakoti apie keletą, bent jau ką pavyko suprasti:
Carlo Rovelli, kurio knyga Laiko tvarka yra lietuviškai (visai faina, bet ne tiek daug paaiškinanti, kiek man norėtųsi), instrumentalistas – neneigia kvantinių reiškinių realumo, bet sako, kad tokie dalelės parametrai, kaip sukinys, prasmę įgyja tik santykyje su kitais elementais, pvz matavimo aparatu. Panašiai būtų jei monetai dar nenukritus, herbas ar skaičius neegzistuotų kaip atskiri dalykai – jie pasimatytų tik santykyje su delnu, žeme, stalu ar pan. Taip ir banginė funkcija aprašo dalelės judėjimą, o kodėl “iškrito” toks ir anoks “skaičius” – ne mūsų reikalas.
“Informacinė” teorija – irgi panašiai instrumentalistinė. Ji sako, kad iš visų eksperimentų mes gauname tik informaciją, kurią deriname su jau turima informacija, t.y. kad visas pasaulio pažinimas vyksta mūsų (kaip žmonijos) galvose, o ne santykyje su “tikru pasauliu”.
“Spooky action at a distance”, kur išmatavus vienos entangled dalelės sukinį, iškart sužinomas kitos, irgi pasidaro menka problema šiuo požiūriu – jei primetam, kad sukinys yra tiesiog būdas mums rinkti informaciją apie dalelę, o ne jos vidinis parametras. “Jei paskaitau straipsnį apie Kiniją, mano informacija apie šią šalį irgi tuoj pat pasikeičia, ir nereikia jokio spooky action at the distance” – sako šio požiūrio adeptai.
Kai kurie suvokia informaciją kaip fizinį dydį, taigi realiai egzistuojančią pasaulyje kaip fotonai aar kaštonai, o ne tik kaip būdą koduoti žinias.
Tada dar yra “Consistent Histories” interpretacija, kurią aš bandžiau suprasti, bet nesupratau:)
Autorius sako: “Kopenhagos interpretacija dėl kvantinio pasaulio nepasiekiamumo kaltina klasikinę mūsų kalbą ir techniką. Rovellio santykio interpretacija kaltę perkelia poreikiui įsteigti santykį su kvantinėmis būsenomis, kad jos įgautų kokią nors fizinę reikšmę. Informacija paremtos interpretacijos elgiasi daugmaž taip pat. “Consistent” arba “Decoherent Histories” interpretacijose dėl to kalta fundamentaliai probabilistinė visų kvantinių reiškinių prigimtis ir taisyklės nustatyti tinkamą pagrindą nebuvimas.“ Tai va.
Tai čia buvo instrumentalistinės teorijos. Realistinės teorijos ne tokios populiarios ir sėkmingos, bet užtat jos prigalvoja ne tik įdomių prielaidų, bet ir eksperimentų, kuriais galima jas patikrinti – ir taip sužinoti daugiau!
Štai toks Bellas svarstė apie “spooky action at the distance” ir galvojo – o kame čia problema? Jei dalelės buvo entanglintos ir išsiskirdamos jos įgijo priešingus sukinius, tai apskaičiavę vieną iškart sužinome ir kitą, nes ŽINOM, kad jis bus priešingas. Čia taip pat kaip pamatęs profesoriaus, kuris visada mūvi skirtingų spalvų kojines, vieną koją su rožine kojine iškart žinai, kad kita kojinė bus ne rožinė. Tada Bellas sugalvojo gudrių eksperimentų su pasisukančiais magnetais (eksperimentai knygoje apibūdinti) patikrinti prielaidai, kad dalelės savo parametrus įgijo išsiskirdamos. Ir pasirodo, kad NE – rezultatai labiau consistent su tuo, kad viena dalelė įgijo savo parametrus po to, kai buvo išmatuota kita, t.y. kad tik tada sugriūna jų bendra banginė funkcija, kad ir kaip toli jos būtų viena nuo kitos. Na, dabar žinom. Ačiū, Bellai!
Man pačiai labai patiko dekoherencijos sąvoka ir jos interpretacijos. Trumpai tariant, taip: jei entanglinam krūvą dalelių ir jas praleidžiam pro matavimo aparatą, jų sukiniai išsidėlios 50:50 principu. Ką tai primena? Termodinaminę entropiją! Kitaip tariant, kad sistema linkusi nusistovėti į didesnę netvarką ir vienodėti, kaip kad įjungus radiatorių šiluma, dalelėms atsitiktinai besidaužant vienoms į kitas, nusistovi panaši per visą kambarį.
Gal čia ir yra priežastis, kodėl išmatavus daleles sugriūna jų banginė funkcija? – ėmė svarstyti fizikai. Mūsų aparatai klasikiniai, bet tuo pat metu sudaryti irgi iš kvantinių objektų, tik jų daug ir kol dalelė per juos praeina, jos banginė funkcija sugriūna atsitiktinai, bet į tikėtiną būseną. PLIUS natūraliai į superpoziciją ji ir nebegrįžta, kaip sudužęs kiaušinis atgal nesusirenka savaime, nors teoriškai niekas tam netrukdo. Taigi – galvojo kai kurie – kuo objektas mažesnis ir kuo mažiau sąveikauja su kitais, tuo ilgiau gali išlaikyti benginę funkciją, o žiurkės ar riešutai per dideli ir juose sąveikų per daug, kad įeitų į superpoziciją.
Bellas sakė, nu ir kas, vis tiek tai nepaaiškina mechanizmo, kodėl konkreti dalelė turi vienus parametrus, o ne kitus.
Von Neumanas į pirmą planą ištraukė stebėtojo protą: gal banga sugriūna ne santykyje su matavimo aparatu, o kai yra užregistruojama stebėtojo sąmonėje? Bet neskubėkime degtis smilkalų ir mautis spalvotų kelnių, nes čia interpretacijų irgi yra įvairių ir ne visos jos durnos, bet visos kelia klausimų. Kokios sąmonės reikia? Ar banginė funkcija sugriūva, kai į ją žiūri šuo? O jei į ją žiūri kitas žmogus ir paskui tau papasakoja rezultatą? Jei laikome, kad kitas žmogus įeina į entanglement ir banginė funkcija sugriūva tik užregistravus rezultatą TAVO prote, tai veda prie solipsizmo ir abejonės kitų protų egzistavimu. Jei ne, tai reiškia, kad sąveika su PIRMOJO stebėtojo protu sugriovė banginę funkciją. Kas tada tokio yra prote? Kai kurie tyrėjai ieško to mechanizmo smegenyse, t.y. kažkokiose mikrotubulėse, bet (dar) nerado.
Dar kiti (pirmiausia Everettas) sako: kam mum spręsti bangos sugriuvimo problemą? Gal ji visai nesugriūva, išsilaiko superpozicijoje – mes stebime vienokį sukinį, o kitas išlieka, tiesiog yra mums neprieinamas / nepastebimas. Tada klausimas: jei banginė funkcija neišsiskirsto, kas tada išsiskirsto? Mūsų protas? Mūsų pasaulio linijos? Visata? Ar kiekveinąkart atlikus matavimą visata suskyla, o gal jų nuo pat pradžių buvo begalybė, tik kitose užfiksuoti kiti rezultatai?
Šios knygos autorius skeptiškas “many worlds” ar multivisatos interpretacijų atžvilgiu, na, nes neįmanoma patikrinti, ar jos egzistuoja. Truputį didelė kaina, sako autorius, atsikratyti banginės funkcijos sugriuvimo, bet vietoj to prigaminti begalybę visatų?
Baigdamas autorius prisipažįsta anksčiau linkęs prie realizmo, bet laikui bėgant besidarantis vis labiau instrumentalistas. Tačiau čia pat pripažįsta manąs, jog kvantinė fizika “nebaigta” – juk ji neįtraukia gravitacijos! Ir čia pat pamini savo mėgstamiausią teoriją kandidatę – quantum loop gravity.
September 15, 2020
Rare among Jim Baggott's ouput, this volume is actually mostly focused on philosophy of science as opposed to popularizing difficult concepts of specific scientific theories. While it is absolutely true that he discusses quantum mechanics throughout, the focus is on the larger philosophical disagreements this remarkable theory has spawned. He is particularly strong on the metaphysical presuppositions that even the most ardent naturalist/realist physicists begrudgingly (or obliviously) accept. I'm not sure he quite framed the disagreement that many of them have with practicing philosophers in that he mainly quotes Lawrence Krauss once, somewhat out of context, and doesn't discuss the similar issues that folks like Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have with this intersection.
He does a fantastic job discussing the fundamental disagreements between Einstein and the Cophenhagen interpretation and how that has precipitated to contemporary debates. Unsurprisingly he is quite dismissive of the Everettian Many-Worlds theory and multiverse theory and argues closer to the end of the work for a need, similar to arguments by Smolin and Penrose, for a restart and reappraisal of methods as these aforementioned theories represent what Dennett said about accepting Cartesian dualism on consciousness, "to accept it is to give up." I'm not quite certain I would agree with his appraisal of some of the neo-Everettian theories especially the arguments recently made in favor of this by Sean Carroll, however his discussion is potent and thought provoking.
More-so than in any of his previous volumes, Baggott treats us to his well-formed opinions and plays the roll of philosopher of science as opposed to scientific expositor to the layperson. A wonderful book that will help you not to in any way understand quantum mechanics, but perhaps, help you understand why you don't understand it.
He does a fantastic job discussing the fundamental disagreements between Einstein and the Cophenhagen interpretation and how that has precipitated to contemporary debates. Unsurprisingly he is quite dismissive of the Everettian Many-Worlds theory and multiverse theory and argues closer to the end of the work for a need, similar to arguments by Smolin and Penrose, for a restart and reappraisal of methods as these aforementioned theories represent what Dennett said about accepting Cartesian dualism on consciousness, "to accept it is to give up." I'm not quite certain I would agree with his appraisal of some of the neo-Everettian theories especially the arguments recently made in favor of this by Sean Carroll, however his discussion is potent and thought provoking.
More-so than in any of his previous volumes, Baggott treats us to his well-formed opinions and plays the roll of philosopher of science as opposed to scientific expositor to the layperson. A wonderful book that will help you not to in any way understand quantum mechanics, but perhaps, help you understand why you don't understand it.
December 5, 2020
I reviewed this on my account that I deleted in panic. This book discusses the problem of the proper interpretation of Quantum mechanics. So it touches on metaphysics and epistemology. The author is a conservative from the days of the mid-twentieth century Copenhagen Interpretation (a paradoxical conservative in the sense of Zizek where being conservative is essentially like being a left-wing social democrat, not an accelerationist neoliberal.) The author takes a variety of views of the wavefunction collapse (see video below) into two camps the realist interpretations and antirealist interpretations. The antirealist interpretations are Copenhagen, and QBism, the Realists versions are consciousness-related explanations, Bohmian Mechanics, Altered QM like GRW or Penrose, or my favorite Everettian Many worlds. The wave function collapse boils down to this. We have this Wavefunction of Probabilities or possibilities but we don't see that in the lab we see particular particles in the lab. The two major ways of taking on this discrepancy are the Epistemological route or the Metaphysical route. The Epistemological way of handling the wavefunction is to use it but not think of it as a real thing. It is essentially the call to ignore the possible reality of wavefunction and just accept it as a handy device that explains results (in other words shut up and calculate, QM is too weird and we will never know, the humble epistemological approach). I go large so I take the Metaphysical route so we have to deal with the wavefunction in our minds as a real thing and what we see in the lab. So how do we realists explain things unseen like the wavefunction? Well, we can go with the consciousness route but that is way too spooky for me and it leaves consciousness undefined and the measurement undefined just as bad as Copenhagen maybe Penrose can handle this one (see the emperor's new mind but I don't see it). Ok Bohmian wave mechanics is great for philosophers who want a more commonsensical solution for us people in the middle world (the middle world is the world of common sense objects, not relativity or invisible light of the electromagnet spectrum this is not a part of our ordinary experience. The term was coined by Dawkins). Bohmian mechanics is not ready for prime time since it doesn't work with Quantum Field theory (the stuff you don't get as an undergrad physics major.) Ok how about GRW or Penrose well their theories are either altered QM or QM in some combination of QM and General Relativity in some theory of Quantum Gravity like Penrose (I am not holding my breath). My particular favorite Metaphysical speculation is Everettian Many worlds both the most conservative and most radical solution conservative in that it dispenses with the wavefunction collapse and radical in that in its place it posits multiple possibly infinite number of branching worlds for every outcome of the probability in the wavefunction. I like variety and possible worlds an aesthetic preference perhaps but satisfying to me. Go your own way and all.
Jade from up and atom explains the wavefunction with still dominant antirealist interpretation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmNQu...
Jade from up and atom explains the math involving quantum mechanics with a little more mathematical detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeUMF...
Jade from up and atom takes you on a tour of Max Tegmark's four levels of multiverse. She is an awesome Youtube educator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-JMi...
Quantum Mechanics macabre side on quantum immortality. Listen you shouldn't try this at home. First, we don't know if the many-worlds interpretation is true. Second, if you are curious you can stick around for two or three hundred years and find out for free if it is true. Either many worlds, in that case, would be true or maybe you are one of the undead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJwUd...
This is Sean Carroll talking to Roger Penrose. It is only tangentially related to the above videos but nice to have an outside view. Please don't take my BS as gospel challenge your views with others and use your head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJADe...
BTW did I mention that Penrose is getting the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2020 and this year being what it is he will probably have to Zoom and get the prize through the mail for showing that black holes according to General Relativity must have a singularity basically matter crushed down to a point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oCQu...
Jade from up and atom explains the wavefunction with still dominant antirealist interpretation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmNQu...
Jade from up and atom explains the math involving quantum mechanics with a little more mathematical detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeUMF...
Jade from up and atom takes you on a tour of Max Tegmark's four levels of multiverse. She is an awesome Youtube educator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-JMi...
Quantum Mechanics macabre side on quantum immortality. Listen you shouldn't try this at home. First, we don't know if the many-worlds interpretation is true. Second, if you are curious you can stick around for two or three hundred years and find out for free if it is true. Either many worlds, in that case, would be true or maybe you are one of the undead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJwUd...
This is Sean Carroll talking to Roger Penrose. It is only tangentially related to the above videos but nice to have an outside view. Please don't take my BS as gospel challenge your views with others and use your head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJADe...
BTW did I mention that Penrose is getting the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2020 and this year being what it is he will probably have to Zoom and get the prize through the mail for showing that black holes according to General Relativity must have a singularity basically matter crushed down to a point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oCQu...
November 7, 2025
::انطباع عام::
========
"قادنا امتداد الزمن وشغف الفهم إلى توهم أن الإنسان قادر على فهم العالم الموضوعي بشكل عقلاني عن طريق التفكير المحض من دون أي أسس تجريبية - أي عن طريقة الميتافيزيقا باختصار." - آلبرت أينشتاين
المشروع العلمي من دار آفاق يستحق الدعم الحقيقي من كل القراء العرب. فلأول مرة يتم تقديم لنا مادة علمية جادة بترجمة احترافية تجعلنا نرى المستوى العلمي لهذه العقول الفيزيائية الفذة. أسلوب الكاتب رشيق والمترجم متمكن، لكن ما جعلني أتململ قليلاً هو حشر الكاتب لرأيه وتفضيلاته أثناء عرض وجهات النظر المختلفة.
في نهاية الكتاب كنت أقول لنفسي: يا لهناء من لا يزال العالم مُصمّم في عقله على طراز نيوتن! إن الإدراك الكامل لكل شيء بالكون على أنه مُكمّم يصيب بدوخة رهيبة ويزلزلك ويقضي على هدوءك. ربما تصالحنا رغم ذلك ميكانيكا الكم على كنه الحياة القائم على التكتلات التي بلا انسيايبة أو اتصال - الافتراغ من وهم السيميترية: "الطبيعة عبارة عن تكتلات ليست انسيابية أو متصلة."
أحببتُ جدًا الصورة الاستعارية الخاصة بالسفينة التي تبحر باستمرار ذهابًا وإيابًا بين نوعين من الشواطئ: شواطئ الواقع الميتافيزيقي السهلة الرملية المرحبة على نحو خادع، وشواطئ الواقع التجريبي الوعرة الصخرية غير المضيافة غالبًا. وهكذا نظل في رحلة بحث لا تنتهي بين سيلا الواقع التجريبي الضحل وخاريبدس الدوامة الرهيبة ذات الهراء الميتافيزيقي الجامح.
***
::مدارس ميكانيكا الكم::
=============
1) تفسير كوبنهاغن — Copenhagen (الأكثر تأييدًا كونه يعمل في المختبر)
الميكانيكا تصف نتائج القياس فقط، والدالة الموجية تمثّل معرفتنا بالنظام، لا الواقع نفسه. الخواص لا تُكتسب إلا عند القياس.
لكن لماذا يحدث الانهيار؟
2) نظرية المعلومات — Quantum Information Approach
الكم في جوهره نظرية معلومات، والدالة الموجية تمثل قيودًا على المعلومات الممكنة عن النظام، وليس كيانًا واقعيًا.
الاحتمالات، الترميز، التشابك بوصفه موردًا معلوماتيًا.
3) ميكانيكا الكم العلائقية — Relational Quantum Mechanics
لا وجود لحقائق مطلقة؛ كل خاصية فيزيائية مُعرّفة فقط بالنسبة لمراقب.
القياس لا يكشف «حقيقة» بل ينشئ علاقة بين النظام والراصد. يتخلّص من مشكلة الانهيار ويفسّر التشابك بطريقة أنيقة.
لكن يصبح الواقع «نسبيًا» بشدة، ما يربك بعض المفاهيم التقليدية.
4) الكيوبيزمية — QBism
الدالة الموجية تمثل اعتقادات شخصية للراصد حول النتائج المحتملة، وليست خاصية للنظام.
إذن الاحتمال ذاتي وليس خاصية فيزيائية.
5) نظريات الانهيار الفيزيائي — Objective Collapse Theories (مثل GRW)
الانهيار حقيقي فيزيائيًا وليس عملية معرفية. الدالة الموجية تنهار تلقائيًا وفق قوانين إضافية على الكم التقليدي.
لكنه يحتاج ثوابت جديدة، ويتوقع تأثيرات غير ملحوظة حتى الآن.
6) العوالم المتعددة
لا انهيار. كل نتيجة قياس تتحقق فعليًا في «فرع» مختلف من الكون. الدالة الموجية تمثل واقعًا كاملاً متعدد الفروع.
هكذا يكون بسيط رياضيًا، بلا انهيار، وبلا مراقب خاص.
لكنه يترك سؤال الاحتمالات غامضًا، وصورة «الأكوان اللانهائية» لا تحظى بإجماع.
رغم ذلك، تعتبر الآن المنافس الأكبر لكوبنهاغن.
*.*.*.*.*
========
"قادنا امتداد الزمن وشغف الفهم إلى توهم أن الإنسان قادر على فهم العالم الموضوعي بشكل عقلاني عن طريق التفكير المحض من دون أي أسس تجريبية - أي عن طريقة الميتافيزيقا باختصار." - آلبرت أينشتاين
المشروع العلمي من دار آفاق يستحق الدعم الحقيقي من كل القراء العرب. فلأول مرة يتم تقديم لنا مادة علمية جادة بترجمة احترافية تجعلنا نرى المستوى العلمي لهذه العقول الفيزيائية الفذة. أسلوب الكاتب رشيق والمترجم متمكن، لكن ما جعلني أتململ قليلاً هو حشر الكاتب لرأيه وتفضيلاته أثناء عرض وجهات النظر المختلفة.
في نهاية الكتاب كنت أقول لنفسي: يا لهناء من لا يزال العالم مُصمّم في عقله على طراز نيوتن! إن الإدراك الكامل لكل شيء بالكون على أنه مُكمّم يصيب بدوخة رهيبة ويزلزلك ويقضي على هدوءك. ربما تصالحنا رغم ذلك ميكانيكا الكم على كنه الحياة القائم على التكتلات التي بلا انسيايبة أو اتصال - الافتراغ من وهم السيميترية: "الطبيعة عبارة عن تكتلات ليست انسيابية أو متصلة."
أحببتُ جدًا الصورة الاستعارية الخاصة بالسفينة التي تبحر باستمرار ذهابًا وإيابًا بين نوعين من الشواطئ: شواطئ الواقع الميتافيزيقي السهلة الرملية المرحبة على نحو خادع، وشواطئ الواقع التجريبي الوعرة الصخرية غير المضيافة غالبًا. وهكذا نظل في رحلة بحث لا تنتهي بين سيلا الواقع التجريبي الضحل وخاريبدس الدوامة الرهيبة ذات الهراء الميتافيزيقي الجامح.
***
::مدارس ميكانيكا الكم::
=============
1) تفسير كوبنهاغن — Copenhagen (الأكثر تأييدًا كونه يعمل في المختبر)
الميكانيكا تصف نتائج القياس فقط، والدالة الموجية تمثّل معرفتنا بالنظام، لا الواقع نفسه. الخواص لا تُكتسب إلا عند القياس.
لكن لماذا يحدث الانهيار؟
2) نظرية المعلومات — Quantum Information Approach
الكم في جوهره نظرية معلومات، والدالة الموجية تمثل قيودًا على المعلومات الممكنة عن النظام، وليس كيانًا واقعيًا.
الاحتمالات، الترميز، التشابك بوصفه موردًا معلوماتيًا.
3) ميكانيكا الكم العلائقية — Relational Quantum Mechanics
لا وجود لحقائق مطلقة؛ كل خاصية فيزيائية مُعرّفة فقط بالنسبة لمراقب.
القياس لا يكشف «حقيقة» بل ينشئ علاقة بين النظام والراصد. يتخلّص من مشكلة الانهيار ويفسّر التشابك بطريقة أنيقة.
لكن يصبح الواقع «نسبيًا» بشدة، ما يربك بعض المفاهيم التقليدية.
4) الكيوبيزمية — QBism
الدالة الموجية تمثل اعتقادات شخصية للراصد حول النتائج المحتملة، وليست خاصية للنظام.
إذن الاحتمال ذاتي وليس خاصية فيزيائية.
5) نظريات الانهيار الفيزيائي — Objective Collapse Theories (مثل GRW)
الانهيار حقيقي فيزيائيًا وليس عملية معرفية. الدالة الموجية تنهار تلقائيًا وفق قوانين إضافية على الكم التقليدي.
لكنه يحتاج ثوابت جديدة، ويتوقع تأثيرات غير ملحوظة حتى الآن.
6) العوالم المتعددة
لا انهيار. كل نتيجة قياس تتحقق فعليًا في «فرع» مختلف من الكون. الدالة الموجية تمثل واقعًا كاملاً متعدد الفروع.
هكذا يكون بسيط رياضيًا، بلا انهيار، وبلا مراقب خاص.
لكنه يترك سؤال الاحتمالات غامضًا، وصورة «الأكوان اللانهائية» لا تحظى بإجماع.
رغم ذلك، تعتبر الآن المنافس الأكبر لكوبنهاغن.
*.*.*.*.*
February 26, 2022
This is pretty good overall. Not a lot of complex equations, and where math does pop up, it’s usually accompanied by illustrations.
Baggott starts with good framing of where QM interpretations are “working at,” between a Scylla bordering lands of pure metaphysics and a Charybdis adjacent to lands of pure empiricism. From there, before diving in, he notes that good physics in particular and science in general is influenced by metaphysical stances, even if particular scientists aren’t cognizant of taking metaphysical stances. At the same time, he notes good philosophy, especially on issues like consciousness and theories of knowledge, is informed by good science.
OK, the details. Not to spoil anything, but he gives fair shrift to all the main current “realist” and “antirealist” interpretations.
And, I'm probably where he is. I'd like to be a realist, but, I don't believe there's any physical wavefunction physically collapsing or most other realist claims. Per his metaphor of the Scylla of metaphysical lands and the Charybdis of empirical ones, "relational" anti-realist theories (types of quantum gravity) seem a better road to pursue than strings. I do think, like Baggott appears to think, per Einstein, that the measurement problem, per Heisenberg’s uncertainty theorem is a real one, not just metaphorical, and that there is a fundamental “graininess” to the universe, along the lines of Einstein’s “god doesn’t play dice.” Also like Einstein, and contra Schrödinger and his cat (which I know was intended as a reductio, but was also based on him smoking too much Hinduism https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2...) I think the wavefunction is just statistical mechanics. On the other hand, and like him, I don’t like that relational theories still have different observers seeing different results. Objective collapse theories, and there are more of them than the Diosi-Penrose that Baggott presents, still have allure, too, but also have problems.
More of Baggott’s thoughts here, per Massimo Pigliucci. https://medium.com/science-and-philos...
That said? One "fail." In chapter 3, after talking about the Scylla and Charybdis of metaphysics and empiricism, and then inductive and deductive reasoning, he talks about what's clearly abduction. In fact, the example he has, of Adams/Leverrier and the idea of searching for Neptune (before Baggott then pivots to Leverrier postulating Vulcan when relativity later had the answer) is the first real-world scientific example of abduction used at Stanford's entry on the subject. Yet, he never uses the word "abduction" (index says never in the book) and references C.S. Pearce only once and that in a footnote.
The book is overall pretty good, but .. that's like a lacuna!
Baggott starts with good framing of where QM interpretations are “working at,” between a Scylla bordering lands of pure metaphysics and a Charybdis adjacent to lands of pure empiricism. From there, before diving in, he notes that good physics in particular and science in general is influenced by metaphysical stances, even if particular scientists aren’t cognizant of taking metaphysical stances. At the same time, he notes good philosophy, especially on issues like consciousness and theories of knowledge, is informed by good science.
OK, the details. Not to spoil anything, but he gives fair shrift to all the main current “realist” and “antirealist” interpretations.
And, I'm probably where he is. I'd like to be a realist, but, I don't believe there's any physical wavefunction physically collapsing or most other realist claims. Per his metaphor of the Scylla of metaphysical lands and the Charybdis of empirical ones, "relational" anti-realist theories (types of quantum gravity) seem a better road to pursue than strings. I do think, like Baggott appears to think, per Einstein, that the measurement problem, per Heisenberg’s uncertainty theorem is a real one, not just metaphorical, and that there is a fundamental “graininess” to the universe, along the lines of Einstein’s “god doesn’t play dice.” Also like Einstein, and contra Schrödinger and his cat (which I know was intended as a reductio, but was also based on him smoking too much Hinduism https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2...) I think the wavefunction is just statistical mechanics. On the other hand, and like him, I don’t like that relational theories still have different observers seeing different results. Objective collapse theories, and there are more of them than the Diosi-Penrose that Baggott presents, still have allure, too, but also have problems.
More of Baggott’s thoughts here, per Massimo Pigliucci. https://medium.com/science-and-philos...
That said? One "fail." In chapter 3, after talking about the Scylla and Charybdis of metaphysics and empiricism, and then inductive and deductive reasoning, he talks about what's clearly abduction. In fact, the example he has, of Adams/Leverrier and the idea of searching for Neptune (before Baggott then pivots to Leverrier postulating Vulcan when relativity later had the answer) is the first real-world scientific example of abduction used at Stanford's entry on the subject. Yet, he never uses the word "abduction" (index says never in the book) and references C.S. Pearce only once and that in a footnote.
The book is overall pretty good, but .. that's like a lacuna!
January 29, 2023
not my favorite on this topic but its okay
December 24, 2024
2.75 stars
October 29, 2020
Jim Baggott begins this book with some philosophical questions, and raising ontological issues about what it actually means to be. Oddly, the book starts dealing with philosophers Plato (his idea of there being a world that's only the shadow of something outside) Descartes (and his idea that thinking must imply his existance, and from there, deriving the existance of a reality), and Kant (in his division of the noumenon, the things in themselves, and the phoenomenon, the perception of the observer).
Though interesting and relevant, this ideas seem to hang loose, and the connection to the quantum reality is stated in a confusing way. The relation, by the way, has to do with the Copenhagen interpretation of the equations for the collapse of the wavefunction (Bohr, Dirac, Heisenberg, etc.) and the critiques to this interpretation of reality through quantum data (Einstein, Podosky, Rosen and, to some extent, Schrödinger), all based on the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics by Von Neuman. Confused? Well, so are the first chapters.
Nonetheless, once you grasp the connection between realism and anti-realism with the history of the development of the theory of quantum mechanics, the book does offer a great insight of what reality is, and what quantum mechanics might tell us about it. From the initial axioms posed by Bohr, Dirac and Heisenberg, to the critiques such as the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky paradox, and Schrödinger's cat thought experiment that would result in an absurdity such as a cat suspended in a dead-alive condition until some observer opend the box and the wavefunction collapsed. Up until a more recent mathematical exposition of multiple universes so that the cat is alive in one, and death in the other (much like Community's darker timeline).
Does reality exist? Is the angular momentum of a fermion set only until observed by a conscious mind? Can information of entangled particles travel faster than the speed of light? How does the spacetime warping model of gravity relates to quantum mechanics?
Well,... there is a consensus for some of this questions. Other are still in the air and may naver be answered. Meybe I just didn't understand a word in this book.
However, it does make for a fun read. And the thought experiments of Einsten and Schrödinger to mess with Bohr's theories are just delightful.
Though interesting and relevant, this ideas seem to hang loose, and the connection to the quantum reality is stated in a confusing way. The relation, by the way, has to do with the Copenhagen interpretation of the equations for the collapse of the wavefunction (Bohr, Dirac, Heisenberg, etc.) and the critiques to this interpretation of reality through quantum data (Einstein, Podosky, Rosen and, to some extent, Schrödinger), all based on the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics by Von Neuman. Confused? Well, so are the first chapters.
Nonetheless, once you grasp the connection between realism and anti-realism with the history of the development of the theory of quantum mechanics, the book does offer a great insight of what reality is, and what quantum mechanics might tell us about it. From the initial axioms posed by Bohr, Dirac and Heisenberg, to the critiques such as the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky paradox, and Schrödinger's cat thought experiment that would result in an absurdity such as a cat suspended in a dead-alive condition until some observer opend the box and the wavefunction collapsed. Up until a more recent mathematical exposition of multiple universes so that the cat is alive in one, and death in the other (much like Community's darker timeline).
Does reality exist? Is the angular momentum of a fermion set only until observed by a conscious mind? Can information of entangled particles travel faster than the speed of light? How does the spacetime warping model of gravity relates to quantum mechanics?
Well,... there is a consensus for some of this questions. Other are still in the air and may naver be answered. Meybe I just didn't understand a word in this book.
However, it does make for a fun read. And the thought experiments of Einsten and Schrödinger to mess with Bohr's theories are just delightful.
December 23, 2021
I am not sure whether I just have end of year exhaustion (and so this is probably not the best book to be reading) or whether this book just made me super angry as it ("A Game of Theories") highlights everything that is wrong with science in the 21st century in terms of lack of evidence based theories and that everyone has a different take/theory/opinion not based on experiment (all for academic glory).
I read an article a while ago saying that we need another revolution in physics (and in science) in order to make any real gain. In terms of quantum, I don't think we have the technology/mental advances to be currently able to "explain" effectively and maybe it will be another 200 years or so before the next revolution happens. if I am being really cynical, so much of current understanding is not based on experiment, but based on academic opinion which people have spent a lifetime working on so are not overly objective any more and not willing to walk away from their "theory".
I loved the first few chapters of this book. I loved the last few chapters. I found the middle very dry and wordy and I would switch off a lot (when I usually love this stuff). There was lots of existential/philosophical debate which is DEFINITELY not my cup of tea and even though the title describes this book perfectly, I stupidly went in wanting more quantum and less philosophy.
A really novel take on the genre for those who think they have read the same old thing over again. Me? I like the same old thing over again (It makes me feel like I am making ground). This just made me angry (but maybe that is all the social media/anti-science/opinionated stuff going around this year).
Reading Challenge
Aussie Readers 2021 A-Z Title Challenge: Read a book with a title starting with Q
I read an article a while ago saying that we need another revolution in physics (and in science) in order to make any real gain. In terms of quantum, I don't think we have the technology/mental advances to be currently able to "explain" effectively and maybe it will be another 200 years or so before the next revolution happens. if I am being really cynical, so much of current understanding is not based on experiment, but based on academic opinion which people have spent a lifetime working on so are not overly objective any more and not willing to walk away from their "theory".
I loved the first few chapters of this book. I loved the last few chapters. I found the middle very dry and wordy and I would switch off a lot (when I usually love this stuff). There was lots of existential/philosophical debate which is DEFINITELY not my cup of tea and even though the title describes this book perfectly, I stupidly went in wanting more quantum and less philosophy.
A really novel take on the genre for those who think they have read the same old thing over again. Me? I like the same old thing over again (It makes me feel like I am making ground). This just made me angry (but maybe that is all the social media/anti-science/opinionated stuff going around this year).
Reading Challenge
Aussie Readers 2021 A-Z Title Challenge: Read a book with a title starting with Q
September 29, 2023
I found Baggot's sections on the varying philosophical interpretations of quantum phenomena both less interesting and more accessible than his sections explicating actual "physics" (e.g., his pictographic descriptions of the wave function, operators, expectation values, etc.) which were far less comprehensible than any given lecture in an actual undergraduate level particle physics course on the wave function. In an effort to keep things simple and sensible, Baggott doesn't dive in deep enough to actually let you wrap your head around the concepts he's discussing. This is fine if you're starting this book right after you've recently read or re-read some Feynman or Penrose, but if you haven't read anything on quantum mechanics in years (my hand is raised), then you're left wondering why this guy is trying to explain quantum mechanics to you using his own set of personalized heiroglyphics instead of actual words, or when he is describing using words, why he isn't sufficiently defining and diving into them.
On top of this, his descriptions all seem to hinge heavily on subjective experience and consciousness, even when he isn't explicitly discussing these topics and everything starts to feel very, very metaphysical. I think this "this isn't about physics, it's about metaphysics and semantics" experience I had with this book comes down to how he's explaining specific concepts like coherence and decoherence and not in the underlying concepts themselves but that said, I can't be sure because he hasn't explained these topics in enough detail for me to be sure whether I'm misunderstanding or not.
Quantum mechanics is tough and confusing and makes no sense and maybe never will - and that's fine - but this is the first book on the subject where I felt like the author was trying to protect me with kid gloves by not even trying to get into the nitty gritty, and in so doing, confused me more by obfuscation and simplification than by the actual complexity of the subject itself.
On top of this, his descriptions all seem to hinge heavily on subjective experience and consciousness, even when he isn't explicitly discussing these topics and everything starts to feel very, very metaphysical. I think this "this isn't about physics, it's about metaphysics and semantics" experience I had with this book comes down to how he's explaining specific concepts like coherence and decoherence and not in the underlying concepts themselves but that said, I can't be sure because he hasn't explained these topics in enough detail for me to be sure whether I'm misunderstanding or not.
Quantum mechanics is tough and confusing and makes no sense and maybe never will - and that's fine - but this is the first book on the subject where I felt like the author was trying to protect me with kid gloves by not even trying to get into the nitty gritty, and in so doing, confused me more by obfuscation and simplification than by the actual complexity of the subject itself.
November 5, 2020
Not a great overview of Quantum Mechanics. The author has an obvious chip on his shoulder from the get go, which taints his perspective. He has a confusing mix of high level explanations and very technical details (gave little thought of an audience). The chapters are extremely long and meander, so you can't remember where you started and what you've accomplished by the time you end one. The graphics look like they are from a 3rd grade copy of a copy of a homework assignment. His descriptions of experiments and theories are simply not useful (along with his confusing graphics). If you want to learn about QM, foundations of physics, and related philosophies, look somewhere else.
June 5, 2024
I will preface this by saying maybe this book isn’t for me, which is why I’m giving it 2 stars instead of 1. But this was a tough read. Incredibly verbose and hard to follow, as someone interested in learning more about quantum physics, this book was not a great introduction. The first and last chapters were understandable, but beyond that I was lost
March 26, 2021
I reviewed this on my account that I deleted in panic. This book discusses the problem of the proper interpretation of Quantum mechanics. So it touches on metaphysics and epistemology. The author is a conservative from the days of the mid-twentieth century Copenhagen Interpretation (a paradoxical conservative in the sense of Zizek where being conservative is essentially like being a left-wing social democrat, not an accelerationist neoliberal.) The author takes a variety of views of the wavefunction collapse (see video below) into two camps the realist interpretations and antirealist interpretations. The antirealist interpretations are Copenhagen, and QBism, the Realists versions are consciousness-related explanations, Bohmian Mechanics, Altered QM like GRW or Penrose, or my favorite Everettian Many worlds. The wave function collapse boils down to this. We have this Wavefunction of Probabilities or possibilities but we don't see that in the lab we see particular particles in the lab. The two major ways of taking on this discrepancy are the Epistemological route or the Metaphysical route. The Epistemological way of handling the wavefunction is to use it but not think of it as a real thing. It is essentially the call to ignore the possible reality of wavefunction and just accept it as a handy device that explains results (in other words shut up and calculate, QM is too weird and we will never know, the humble epistemological approach). I go large so I take the Metaphysical route so we have to deal with the wavefunction in our minds as a real thing and what we see in the lab. So how do we realists explain things unseen like the wavefunction? Well, we can go with the consciousness route but that is way too spooky for me and it leaves consciousness undefined and the measurement undefined just as bad as Copenhagen maybe Penrose can handle this one (see the emperor's new mind but I don't see it). Ok Bohmian wave mechanics is great for philosophers who want a more commonsensical solution for us people in the middle world (the middle world is the world of common sense objects, not relativity or invisible light of the electromagnet spectrum this is not a part of our ordinary experience. The term was coined by Dawkins). Bohmian mechanics is not ready for prime time since it doesn't work with Quantum Field theory (the stuff you don't get as an undergrad physics major.) Ok how about GRW or Penrose well their theories are either altered QM or QM in some combination of QM and General Relativity in some theory of Quantum Gravity like Penrose (I am not holding my breath). My particular favorite Metaphysical speculation is Everettian Many worlds both the most conservative and most radical solution conservative in that it dispenses with the wavefunction collapse and radical in that in its place it posits multiple possibly infinite number of branching worlds for every outcome of the probability in the wavefunction. I like variety and possible worlds an aesthetic preference perhaps but satisfying to me. Go your own way and all.
Jade from up and atom explains the wavefunction with still dominant antirealist interpretation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmNQu...
Jade from up and atom explains the math involving quantum mechanics with a little more mathematical detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeUMF...
Jade from up and atom takes you on a tour of Max Tegmark's four levels of multiverse. She is an awesome Youtube educator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-JMi...
Quantum Mechanics macabre side on quantum immortality. Listen you shouldn't try this at home. First, we don't know if the many-worlds interpretation is true. Second, if you are curious you can stick around for two or three hundred years and find out for free if it is true. Either many worlds, in that case, would be true or maybe you are one of the undead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJwUd...
This is Sean Carroll talking to Roger Penrose. It is only tangentially related to the above videos but nice to have an outside view. Please don't take my BS as gospel challenge your views with others and use your head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJADe...
BTW did I mention that Penrose is getting the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2020 and this year being what it is he will probably have to Zoom and get the prize through the mail for showing that black holes according to General Relativity must have a singularity basically matter crushed down to a point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oCQu...
1 like · Like ∙ flag
following reviews
READING PROGRESS
October 1, 2020 – Started Reading
October 1, 2020 – Finished Reading
November 30, 2020 – Shelved as: to-read
November 30, 2020 – Shelved
Jade from up and atom explains the wavefunction with still dominant antirealist interpretation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmNQu...
Jade from up and atom explains the math involving quantum mechanics with a little more mathematical detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeUMF...
Jade from up and atom takes you on a tour of Max Tegmark's four levels of multiverse. She is an awesome Youtube educator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-JMi...
Quantum Mechanics macabre side on quantum immortality. Listen you shouldn't try this at home. First, we don't know if the many-worlds interpretation is true. Second, if you are curious you can stick around for two or three hundred years and find out for free if it is true. Either many worlds, in that case, would be true or maybe you are one of the undead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJwUd...
This is Sean Carroll talking to Roger Penrose. It is only tangentially related to the above videos but nice to have an outside view. Please don't take my BS as gospel challenge your views with others and use your head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJADe...
BTW did I mention that Penrose is getting the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2020 and this year being what it is he will probably have to Zoom and get the prize through the mail for showing that black holes according to General Relativity must have a singularity basically matter crushed down to a point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oCQu...
1 like · Like ∙ flag
following reviews
READING PROGRESS
October 1, 2020 – Started Reading
October 1, 2020 – Finished Reading
November 30, 2020 – Shelved as: to-read
November 30, 2020 – Shelved
Read
September 26, 2022"Praktycznie nie sposób uprawiać jakiejkolwiek nauki bez metafizyki, interpretowanej szeroko jako sfera domysłów, których nie sposób udowodnić" (50).
"Nigdy nie możemy być pewni, czy rzeczywistość, którą postrzegamy lub mierzymy, odzwierciedla bądź wyobraża rzeczy same w sobie, niemniej [...] nadal możemy stwierdzać, że jeśli zrobimy to, to stanie się tamto. Możemy ustalać twarde fakty na temat cieni [nawiązanie do Platona] - projekcji tego, co uważamy za rzeczywistość, czymkolwiek by była, do świata naszych zmysłów i pomiarów - i porównywać je z podobnymi faktami uzyskanymi przez innych" (58).
"Chociaż naukowcy nieczęsto otwarcie to przyznają, rzeczywistość, którą badają, jest w istocie rzeczywistością empiryczną, wydedukowaną z ich badań nad cieniami. To rzeczywistość empirycznych obserwacji, doświadczeń, pomiarów i percepcji, rzeczywistość empiryczna rzeczy takich, jakimi się wydają, i rzeczy takich, jakie są mierzone" (58).
"możemy założyć, że własności i zachowanie rzucanych przez nie cieni są w jakiś sposób określone przez to, co je rzuca" (59).
"Moim zdaniem bez uprzedniego założenia, że u podstaw wszystkich suchych doświadczeń empirycznych tkwi niezależna egzystencja racjonalnej i spójnej logicznie rzeczywistości, tworzenie wszelkich doświadczeń naukowych jest po prostu niemożliwe" (59).
"Oto schizofrenia z nawiązką" (267).
"Nowym elementem, który został wprowadzony przez Bella, było odrzucenie pojęcia przeszłości. Zamiast mówić o rozgałęzianiu systemu światów w sposób, w jaki dzieje się to w koronie drzewa, Bell zasugerował, że różne 'historie' cząstki biegną równolegle, czasem zlewając się ze sobą, co prowadzi do wystąpienia efektów interferencji. Wyniki są więc determinowane przez sumowanie przeprowadzone na tych historiach, bez zauważalnego związku między jakąkolwiek konkretną teraźniejszością i jakąkolwiek szczególną przeszłością" (269).
"Stwierdziłem, że nie jest możliwe uprawianie nauki w jakimkolwiek zakresie bez odwoływania się do metafizyki. Kiedy jednak metafizyka całkowicie nas przytłacza i gaśnie nadzieja na jakikolwiek kontakt z Rzeczywistością Empiryczną - kiedy zostaje tylko metafizyka - ośmielę się twierdzić, że takie spekulacje nie są już naukowe. [...] W połączeniu z innymi spekulatywnymi teoriami fundamentalnej fizyki wieloświat nakłania nas do odejścia od pojęcia metody naukowej, postrzeganego prerz wielu jako staroświeckie i kojarzące się z obsesją na punkcie dowodów empirycznych, przyzwyczajeniem, które najchętniej zastąpiliby afirmacją 'oszczędności' mającej źródło w czysto metafizycznych objaśnieniach. [...] Nawet gdy formułowane są przewidywania, to tylko nieznacznie różnią sie one od cytowanych przez Poppera mglistych szarad wypowiadanych przez jasnowidzów. [...] Nie mamy wyboru, jak tylko z przerażeniem obserwować Statek Nauki znikający w odmętach strasznego wiru. Nikt się nie uratuje" (283, 286, 287-288, 289).
"Nigdy nie możemy być pewni, czy rzeczywistość, którą postrzegamy lub mierzymy, odzwierciedla bądź wyobraża rzeczy same w sobie, niemniej [...] nadal możemy stwierdzać, że jeśli zrobimy to, to stanie się tamto. Możemy ustalać twarde fakty na temat cieni [nawiązanie do Platona] - projekcji tego, co uważamy za rzeczywistość, czymkolwiek by była, do świata naszych zmysłów i pomiarów - i porównywać je z podobnymi faktami uzyskanymi przez innych" (58).
"Chociaż naukowcy nieczęsto otwarcie to przyznają, rzeczywistość, którą badają, jest w istocie rzeczywistością empiryczną, wydedukowaną z ich badań nad cieniami. To rzeczywistość empirycznych obserwacji, doświadczeń, pomiarów i percepcji, rzeczywistość empiryczna rzeczy takich, jakimi się wydają, i rzeczy takich, jakie są mierzone" (58).
"możemy założyć, że własności i zachowanie rzucanych przez nie cieni są w jakiś sposób określone przez to, co je rzuca" (59).
"Moim zdaniem bez uprzedniego założenia, że u podstaw wszystkich suchych doświadczeń empirycznych tkwi niezależna egzystencja racjonalnej i spójnej logicznie rzeczywistości, tworzenie wszelkich doświadczeń naukowych jest po prostu niemożliwe" (59).
"Oto schizofrenia z nawiązką" (267).
"Nowym elementem, który został wprowadzony przez Bella, było odrzucenie pojęcia przeszłości. Zamiast mówić o rozgałęzianiu systemu światów w sposób, w jaki dzieje się to w koronie drzewa, Bell zasugerował, że różne 'historie' cząstki biegną równolegle, czasem zlewając się ze sobą, co prowadzi do wystąpienia efektów interferencji. Wyniki są więc determinowane przez sumowanie przeprowadzone na tych historiach, bez zauważalnego związku między jakąkolwiek konkretną teraźniejszością i jakąkolwiek szczególną przeszłością" (269).
"Stwierdziłem, że nie jest możliwe uprawianie nauki w jakimkolwiek zakresie bez odwoływania się do metafizyki. Kiedy jednak metafizyka całkowicie nas przytłacza i gaśnie nadzieja na jakikolwiek kontakt z Rzeczywistością Empiryczną - kiedy zostaje tylko metafizyka - ośmielę się twierdzić, że takie spekulacje nie są już naukowe. [...] W połączeniu z innymi spekulatywnymi teoriami fundamentalnej fizyki wieloświat nakłania nas do odejścia od pojęcia metody naukowej, postrzeganego prerz wielu jako staroświeckie i kojarzące się z obsesją na punkcie dowodów empirycznych, przyzwyczajeniem, które najchętniej zastąpiliby afirmacją 'oszczędności' mającej źródło w czysto metafizycznych objaśnieniach. [...] Nawet gdy formułowane są przewidywania, to tylko nieznacznie różnią sie one od cytowanych przez Poppera mglistych szarad wypowiadanych przez jasnowidzów. [...] Nie mamy wyboru, jak tylko z przerażeniem obserwować Statek Nauki znikający w odmętach strasznego wiru. Nikt się nie uratuje" (283, 286, 287-288, 289).
January 9, 2021
In his book "Quantum Reality" author Jim Baggott gives a thorough account of the current state of Quantum Theory. Perhaps it is even better to rephrase this as an account of the "mixed state" of the different Quantum Theories, because at this moment there is not one Quantum Theory unanimously recognized as the final theory, but are there several theories competing which each other.
The title "Quantum Reality" can then be interpreted at two levels: it is about objective reality and its meaning in a quantum world on the one hand, but at the other hand, at a meta-level, it's about the scientific reality that perhaps there will no be one final Quantum Theory.
Reality in a quantum world has been the topic of heated discussions: the most-widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics is the so-called Copenhagen interpretation, which is considered as an anti-realist interpretation. However, this interpretation is considered as unsatifactory by some scientists because as a theory is doesn't explain how nature is working and doesn't help our understanding of the physical world we are living in. Main question then is whether such a clear answer indeed exists and is just not found yet, or that, by “design”, no such answer can exist. This raises the philosophical question about the meaning of “reality”.
In his accompanying book “The Quantum Cookbook”, Baggott outlined the historical background of the different Quantum Theories, helping the reader in his understanding the line of thinking and reasoning of famous scientists like Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Pauli, Dirac, Bohr and Born. These scientists worked on the building blocks - described in this cookbook as mathematical recipes - trying to build, by “trial and error”, a consistent foundation of Quantum Mechanics.
In “Quantum Reality” Baggott shed his light on what it takes to have such a consistent foundation of Quantum Mechanics. He does not only account for the different theories and approaches, but also describe the rules of the game in finding such theories. By this, he provides an axiomatic approach describing the "requirements" that should be satisfied by any realistic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Which are then translated into axioms on which to base your interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
As said, the reader looking for clear answers and a better understanding of Quantum Mechanics might be surprised or even disappointed. Not due to Baggott, he gives a clear account of the “competing” theories, but due to the fact the clear answer has not been found yet.
What I like about this book, is that Baggott clearly places the philosophical question about "objective reality" at the heart of the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, in this way questioning the border between metaphysics and physics, and translate the search for the ultimate answer into an axiomatic approach.
What I miss in his axiomatic approach, is the "realization" that such an approach has its limitations as shown by Gödel and Turing beginning of the last century. Not surpisingly at the heart of Gödel's proof was his Gödel numbering as a way to encode meta-mathemics into mathematics.
The title "Quantum Reality" can then be interpreted at two levels: it is about objective reality and its meaning in a quantum world on the one hand, but at the other hand, at a meta-level, it's about the scientific reality that perhaps there will no be one final Quantum Theory.
Reality in a quantum world has been the topic of heated discussions: the most-widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics is the so-called Copenhagen interpretation, which is considered as an anti-realist interpretation. However, this interpretation is considered as unsatifactory by some scientists because as a theory is doesn't explain how nature is working and doesn't help our understanding of the physical world we are living in. Main question then is whether such a clear answer indeed exists and is just not found yet, or that, by “design”, no such answer can exist. This raises the philosophical question about the meaning of “reality”.
In his accompanying book “The Quantum Cookbook”, Baggott outlined the historical background of the different Quantum Theories, helping the reader in his understanding the line of thinking and reasoning of famous scientists like Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Pauli, Dirac, Bohr and Born. These scientists worked on the building blocks - described in this cookbook as mathematical recipes - trying to build, by “trial and error”, a consistent foundation of Quantum Mechanics.
In “Quantum Reality” Baggott shed his light on what it takes to have such a consistent foundation of Quantum Mechanics. He does not only account for the different theories and approaches, but also describe the rules of the game in finding such theories. By this, he provides an axiomatic approach describing the "requirements" that should be satisfied by any realistic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Which are then translated into axioms on which to base your interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
As said, the reader looking for clear answers and a better understanding of Quantum Mechanics might be surprised or even disappointed. Not due to Baggott, he gives a clear account of the “competing” theories, but due to the fact the clear answer has not been found yet.
What I like about this book, is that Baggott clearly places the philosophical question about "objective reality" at the heart of the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, in this way questioning the border between metaphysics and physics, and translate the search for the ultimate answer into an axiomatic approach.
What I miss in his axiomatic approach, is the "realization" that such an approach has its limitations as shown by Gödel and Turing beginning of the last century. Not surpisingly at the heart of Gödel's proof was his Gödel numbering as a way to encode meta-mathemics into mathematics.
October 21, 2021
For me the value in the book is not its discussion of quantum mechanics. By now there are sufficient numbers of other books that do a reasonable job of that, in 2020 we don't need yet another basic primer, but what this book does that is different from some others is to ask the question, perhaps in a round about way, of where the heck are we now? What does it mean when we we have a theory of a reality that has resisted every attempt to falsify it, a theory that makes predictions that are borne out by experiments and by the usefulness of that theory in designing transistors and many other things of everyday life, and yet a theory about a scale of reality that we can never experience directly, a level so small that any attempt to observe it changes it. A theory, moreover, which asks us to grapple with things like spooky action at a distance and the idea that reality is probabilistic at small scale but deterministic at large scale and that the twain perhaps shall never meet. Baggot invoked in me a deeper and more philosophical consideration of what foundations the theory of quantum mechanics and especially its Copenhagen Interpretation are built on. It is a solid theory that has been proven again and again by the predictions it makes, and yet it asks us to accept a very weird view of reality. Baggot is not ready just yet to join those who "shut up and calculate." He invites us to consider other interpretations of the equations underlying quantum mechanics. He raises philosophical questions about what the relationship between the theory and reality really is. In a sense I think he is suggesting that some are willing to just accept that quantum theory works and leave it at that, while others, Baggott among them, are still on the search to understand the underlying reality that the equations are describing. Because the Copenhagen interpretation just seems implausible on some level, though no one has been able to disprove it. An interesting read for the questions it raises, sharing with the reader some of the things that theorists are still toiling to understand between calculations.
July 29, 2022
I really like the subject matter of this book: how can quantum mechanics be a description of reality? That's the big issue with the Copenhagen interpretation and why Einstein had such a problem with it. And Einstein lost out because he couldn't figure out anything better.
(Warning, spoilers ahead)
This book does a decent job informing about developments since the early days of quantum physics. But in my mind not such a great job of answering the question. The best answer is that, no, quantum physics doesn't represent reality...it just describes information about reality. Seems like a logical conclusion, but then why didn't the preeminent physicists of the day conclude that? Why did it take 100 years and no evidence to conclude that?
Another way to look at the book is that it concludes quantum mechanics theory is incomplete. Okay. Not something you really need to read a book to figure out. And lastly, he goes into theories of consciousness with quantum physics, which I think really diverges from the point of the book. He also talks about the many universes theory, but there are other books that discuss it much more thoroughly.
If you want to know what he agrees with, because he constantly mentions it, then this is the book for you. Otherwise, it's just okay. I do wish there were more books on this topic, though.
(Warning, spoilers ahead)
This book does a decent job informing about developments since the early days of quantum physics. But in my mind not such a great job of answering the question. The best answer is that, no, quantum physics doesn't represent reality...it just describes information about reality. Seems like a logical conclusion, but then why didn't the preeminent physicists of the day conclude that? Why did it take 100 years and no evidence to conclude that?
Another way to look at the book is that it concludes quantum mechanics theory is incomplete. Okay. Not something you really need to read a book to figure out. And lastly, he goes into theories of consciousness with quantum physics, which I think really diverges from the point of the book. He also talks about the many universes theory, but there are other books that discuss it much more thoroughly.
If you want to know what he agrees with, because he constantly mentions it, then this is the book for you. Otherwise, it's just okay. I do wish there were more books on this topic, though.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 31, 2021
This is an extremely well written reminder that scientific knowledge concerns the phenomenon manifested by things-in-themselves (Kantian "Ding an sich"), and things-in-themselves are not knowable. An anti-realist interpretation of the wavefunction, and perhaps in particular a relational and Bayesian one, will resolve all conceptual conundrums presented by the corpus of quantum mechanics. Realist hidden-variable theories entail non-locality, and in any case are just interpretations. Speculations should not distract us from rigorous science. The fact that quantum mechanics is not compatible with general relativity is a clear warning sign that the wavefunction is quite probably incomplete. To pursue otherwise is likely to be futile. All in all, this book is a joy to read. Five stars.
February 10, 2023
Great book. It introduces some basic concepts of quantum mechanics, but it's more focused on philosophical interpretation of it. And in this sense it does very well. The stories of early development of QM and how the best physicists in the early 20th century. How Copenhagen interpretation was introduced into the world and many many others. I recommend this book to anyone who likes to contemplate about the structure of reality.
September 8, 2025
A confused and muddled book.
This book is neither a good primer on Quantum mechanics nor the philosophical aspects of it. The explanation is inadequately explained and there is too much focus on the philosophy.
This book is neither a good primer on Quantum mechanics nor the philosophical aspects of it. The explanation is inadequately explained and there is too much focus on the philosophy.
November 30, 2020
Well written and interesting, but I must admit that at times I found my 71-yr-old brain unable to keep pace. My problem, not the author's.
February 1, 2021
Good book.
May 8, 2022
Really good insights into quantum "reality". Would read again. A fair amount of philosophy was included.
August 25, 2022
I liked this more than I thought I would although it gave me a headache. I won't pretend I fully understood all of it, but I'll definitely revised this should my brain grow larger
July 6, 2022
Fascinating book about the current state of Quantum Mechanics and its philosophical implications, very detailed and very good explained.
September 18, 2020
Jim Baggott has worked really hard at this book and I take my hat off to him. An immense amount of work must have been needed and I doubt I would have had the stamina for the task. He does an excellent job of discussing the issues involved.
The problem is that I cannot see who the target audience will be. A lot of the issues discussed are pretty technical and to anyone is unfamiliar with quantum mechanics the book will be impenetrable. There are numerous places where Baggott says "take my word for it", or words to that effect, because it is simply impossible to explain things properly to innocent bystanders.
I am a (retired) physicist who has spent many happy hours calculating wavefunctions, and I found the book to be ... well ... pretty uninteresting to be honest. I, and all the physicists I know, mostly ignore the philosophical issues that Baggott discusses. It's the sort of thing we may discuss late at night after a few drinks, but it just isn't part of the day job. I get the impression that while there are a few very vocal people making a noise about the subject most of us simply don't care.
I suspect that Baggott's main audience is Baggott i.e. he wrote the book because he wanted to get his own ideas on the subject straight. The irony is that the last chapter of the book shows he hasn't even managed to convince himself. I don't want to be critical of the book because it is a thorough and painstaking piece of work, but I honestly can't recommend this to anyone. Not to other physicists, who probably have better things to do, and not to the general public who will find it mostly incomprehensible.
The problem is that I cannot see who the target audience will be. A lot of the issues discussed are pretty technical and to anyone is unfamiliar with quantum mechanics the book will be impenetrable. There are numerous places where Baggott says "take my word for it", or words to that effect, because it is simply impossible to explain things properly to innocent bystanders.
I am a (retired) physicist who has spent many happy hours calculating wavefunctions, and I found the book to be ... well ... pretty uninteresting to be honest. I, and all the physicists I know, mostly ignore the philosophical issues that Baggott discusses. It's the sort of thing we may discuss late at night after a few drinks, but it just isn't part of the day job. I get the impression that while there are a few very vocal people making a noise about the subject most of us simply don't care.
I suspect that Baggott's main audience is Baggott i.e. he wrote the book because he wanted to get his own ideas on the subject straight. The irony is that the last chapter of the book shows he hasn't even managed to convince himself. I don't want to be critical of the book because it is a thorough and painstaking piece of work, but I honestly can't recommend this to anyone. Not to other physicists, who probably have better things to do, and not to the general public who will find it mostly incomprehensible.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews