Helgoland

by Carlo Rovelli, Hans van den Berg (Translator)

Op Helgoland, een kaal eiland in de Noordzee, een bij uitstek geschikte plaats om extreme ideeën te ontwikkelen, gaf de 23-jarige Werner Heisenberg de aanzet tot wat volgens velen de ingrijpendste wetenschappelijke revolutie aller tijden is geweest: de kwantumfysica.
In de loop van de daaropvolgende eeuw werd het steeds duidelijker dat de kwantumtheorie schokkende en verontrustende ideeën in zich bergt, zoals spookachtige kansgolven en ver van elkaar verwijderde objecten die op magische wijze verbonden blijken. Tegelijkertijd is ze talloze malen experimenteel bevestigd, hetgeen heeft geleid tot een enorme verscheidenheid aan toepassingen. Men mag wel stellen dat de wereld van nu wordt geregeerd door deze theorie, terwijl ze toch nog altijd uiterst geheimzinnig is.
In Helgoland vertelt Carlo Rovelli glashelder de avontuurlijke en door controversen gekenmerkte ontwikkeling van de kwantumtheorie. Ook geeft hij een nieuwe visie op de theorie: die is volgens Rovelli aanleiding om nog steeds onopgeloste fundamentele kwesties omtrent de aard van de fysische werkelijkheid, en daaruit voortvloeiend ook die van onszelf, in een nieuw en verrassend perspectief te onderzoeken.
Carlo Rovelli (1956) geeft leiding aan de kwantumzwaartekrachtgroep van het Centre de physique théorique van de universiteit van Aix-Marseille. Bij Prometheus verschenen eerder Zeven korte beschouwingen over natuurkunde (2016) en Het mysterie van de tijd (2018). Beide boeken werden vertaald in meer dan veertig talen, en er werden een miljoen exemplaren van verkocht.
Over Het mysterie van de tijd:
‘Een magistraal boek waarin Carlo Rovelli oude mythes verknoopt met moderne natuurkunde.’ NRC Handelsblad •••••
‘Goed schrijven over natuurkunde kunnen maar heel weinig mensen. Bestsellerauteur Carlo Rovelli is een van hen.’ De Volkskrant, Boek Van De Week
‘Grote geesten in een klein boek.’ Elsevier (4 sterren)
Over Zeven korte beschouwingen over natuurkunde:
‘Het panorama dat Carlo Rovelli schetst is van een adembenemende schoonheid en zet aan tot denken.’ NRC Handelsblad (5 ballen)

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

191 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 2020

About the author

Carlo Rovelli is an Italian theoretical physicist and writer who has worked in Italy and the USA, and currently works in France. His work is mainly in the field of quantum gravity, where he is among the founders of the loop quantum gravity theory. He has also worked in the history and philosophy of science. He collaborates regularly with several Italian newspapers, in particular the cultural supplements of Il Sole 24 Ore and La Repubblica.

Reviews

[BlackOxford · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s As If Reality Didn’t Exist

Here’s the problem: the more one studies quantum theory, the less one understands about it. Richard Feynman said that and no one has had the temerity to argue the point since. So Rovelli has written a short book whose purpose is not to elucidate the incomprehensible but to demonstrate that incomprehensibility in a comprehensible way. Why did he write it? I suspect that the answer is connected with the remark made by his colleague cited at the very beginning of the book: “It’s as if reality didn’t exist.”

Quantum theory is a peculiar sort of triumph for human intelligence. It is a humiliation for anyone who claims to know what reality means. If reality is constituted by the facts of quantum research - superposition, instantaneous action at a distance, the effects of observation, etc. - then all other facts are compromised. As Rovelli is keen to point out: after a century of scientific effort, quantum theory has never been proven wrong. In which case its results are more than confusing. These results contradict our experiential intuition, our logic, and the fundamental concept of truth.

So the old joke, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?,” takes on a tragic new meaning. Not only do our eyes lie. Everything everyone has reported about the world - except about quantum physics - has been false. Not just useful approximations, but false. This is not a matter of, for example, continuing to use the term sunrise when we all know this an ancient belief turned metaphor. It means nothing is continuous despite appearances. It means there are no things, only relations with no fixed components, only a scientific language with no clear referents outside itself, and a range of contrary interpretations about how to connect that scientific language with the words we use with each other.

This is intellectually humiliating no matter how spectacular the practical consequences of quantum research. Such research allows us to do things we simply don’t understand from the production of nuclear weapons to plant breeding. But whatever it is that lies behind the veil of the quantum equations, if anything, is as inaccessible now as it was when Plato wrote about his cave or Leibniz his monads. Could it be that this is the essential meaning of quantum physics, namely that the enterprise we call ‘thought’ is not what we presumed? Perhaps thought has nothing to do with appreciating reality, approaching truth, or understanding how things work.

Perhaps instead, thought is ‘merely’ the term we use for human cooperative effort full stop. Rovelli implies this in his highlighting of the group-think manner through which quantum physics emerged. Not just that of the 20th century scientists commonly associated with the science, but also their, often obscure, predecessors whose work they exploited. In other words, it is not the practical results which are important but the massive collaboration required to produce the ideas that have become common currency. And the fact that these ideas have turned the tables on their creators by going rogue, as it were, are a provocation by thought to yet more cooperative thought.

It’s a thought.

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

There’s an awful lot of nonsense written about quantum mechanics. And then there is an awful lot of stuff written about it by scientists that is so impenetrable that it isn’t at all surprising that people go with the nonsense. This book is particularly good in that it tells you a few things you really need to know about quantum mechanics.

The first is that it is one of the most confirmed theories in science. This is important, because some of the conclusion of quantum mechanics are so opposed to our normal intuitions about the world, we need to be reminded that the seemingly more crazy facts it tells us have been confirmed – repeatedly confirmed to the point where alternatives (and our common sense assumptions) need to be abandoned.

The second is that, like relativity, quantum mechanics doesn’t actually say ‘with our thoughts we make the world’ – there is a real world out there and the truth of the universe isn’t some kind of solipsism where we each get to have our own world according to our own design and preferences.

I’m going to stop counting now – I’m not sure why I started – but the main thing quantum theory says – and this is the key reason why you should read this book – is that everything is relational. In fact, if you had asked me before reading this, I’d have happily told you am a relational kind of guy. I believe we spend far too much time worried about ‘things’ – when really, things don’t persist, it is relationships that persist. This is particularly true – I would have said before reading this book – in the social sciences. Bourdieu, for example, talks about fields of human activity – but that these only exist between people, but that the field themselves exist before any of us enter that field, and will persist long after any of us leave it. The field can’t exist without us (the field of law, the field of education, the field of finance and so on) in the sense they are wholly human creations and only exist between interacting humans – but the fields are independent of any of us. A field is a system of relations and it is those relations that give meaning to the field as a whole and any particular location within that field. It hadn’t occurred to me to apply this to everything in the universe. But as the author says – it is impossible for anything in the universe to have any properties that are not brought into being by the thing’s relationship (and interaction with) something else in the universe. Without interaction or relationships properties simply do not exist.

He spends much more time explaining this point than I have here – but I believe that if it is the only thing you take away from this book – that is more than enough.

I just want to say that I’m particularly impressed with myself that I’ve written a review on a book on quantum mechanics without a single reference to double-slits or entanglement or even the uncertainty principle…

[Bharath · Rating 5 out of 5]

Science writing which can appeal to people at large is not easy. I earlier read Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ and found it fascinating. In fact, it helped me appreciate Blake Crouch’s science fiction book ‘Recursion’ so much better. In ‘Helgoland’, Carlo Rovelli manages to invoke the same sense of wonder about the universe we live in, with a difficult subject to comprehend – Quantum Theory.

Helgoland is where Heisenberg set the stage for quantum mechanics. The implications especially around the uncertainties it threw up had many uncomfortable (including the much-quoted response of Albert Einstein). And yet, it has withstood the test of time and lot of the subsequent work & inventions have been built on its foundations. This leads to many non-intuitive possibilities. One such is the famous Schrodinger’s cat – which is both dead and alive at the same time. Also related is the concept of quantum entanglement where distant objects are in tune and behave identically, though evidence does not suggest either a pre-configuration of state or exchange of information. I liked how the possibilities of many quantum worlds, quantum primaries and other possibilities was explained. There are sections dealing with very complex concepts which are well articulated.

I liked how Rovelli explains that quantum theory is not about describing object properties in isolation but their relationships with other objects. Well, just about everything we see is related to something else – planets to stars, etc. Is there an anchoring object around which we can describe others? None has been narrowed down to. Here, unexpectedly Rovelli meanders to Buddhism and the writings of Nagarjuna. Though not written with current scientific temper in mind, Nagarjuna suggests that there is no anchor whatsoever (those familiar with the concepts will recognize this as the primary departure from Advaita Vedanta where Brahman is the anchor).

The book is honest, acknowledging that there is much we do not know. It provides a fascinating insight into the progress science has made and the intriguing world we live in.

If quantum theory interests you, this is a great book – much recommended.

My rating: 4.5 / 5.

[Alice · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reality is a mystery, the obsession isn't. Since we still can’t fully comprehend quantum physics, at least we know it’s addictive. Calling it a win.

[Max · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rovelli says he is writing this book for those unfamiliar with quantum physics to help them understand it as well as it can be. Quantum physics or quantum mechanics is commonly accepted as a mystery. As Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman said, nobody understands it. Rovelli offers brief explanations of the non-controversial facts about scientific experiments, measurements and observations of quantum phenomena. But the real issue is interpretation of the observations and mathematics of quantum theory. Respected scientists have a variety of different interpretations. Most of this book is about Rovelli’s interpretation.

Rovelli’s take off point is the fact that in quantum experiments, observation of fundamental particles changes their behaviors. He shows a version of the famous double slit experiment to illustrate this. He also references another mystery, entanglement. When particles become entangled, they can instantly correlate their properties even though distantly separated in time and space. Rovelli’s answer is that all properties are relative to an entity’s interaction with other entities. Without such interaction an entity is essentially nonexistent. The bulk of the book is Rovelli making that case. It gets philosophical bordering on the metaphysical with a lot of wordplay that just seemed like semantics. It didn’t make me feel that I understood quantum phenomena any better. While Rovelli’s interpretation contains many points I agree with, it left me underwhelmed.

It’s hard for me to see this book as a good introduction to the topic. With a small description of the mystery of the quantum and a large treatise on what that means, it reverses what I think an introduction to quantum mechanics should contain. I looked through my list of physics books and all have their challenges as an introduction. Adam Becker’s What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics gives a good rundown on competing interpretations. Philip Ball’s Beyond Weird puts a good perspective on possible takeaways from quantum mechanics. Anil Ananthaswamy’s Through Two Doors at Once. really demonstrates the mystery of quantum physics. He does this by presenting a collection of different versions of the double slit experiment. It leaves you with a feeling of profound mystery, no interpretation required.

[Brian Clegg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although Helgoland suffers from the usual issues Carlo Rovelli's books face - it is very short for the price and has a distinct tendency to purple prose - it is his best so far. In fact, the first hundred pages or so are excellent.

Rovelli starts by giving us a brief background to quantum physics, concentrating most on Heisenberg, Schrödinger and to an extent Dirac's key period of contribution. This is clear and to the point. He then gives us a short summary of a couple of familiar quantum interpretations before introducing his own relational quantum physics interpretation. Although this idea dates back to the 1990s it has had very little coverage in popular science books, which is a shame.

Like all interpretations, Rovelli's requires us to accept some difficult postulates - in this case, that the reality of the state of a quantum system is relative rather than absolute - so it can be different for one observer than it is for another. Although at first this seems bizarre, it fits well with the way that relativity plays around with the impact of different reference frames and it is arguably the closest interpretation to the 'shut up and calculate' approach of ignoring interpretations that is still likely to be the most popular amongst non-philosophically inclined physicists.

So far, so excellent. I give this part of the book a solid five stars. Although Rovelli's explanation of, for example, how entanglement works with this interpretation could do to be better written to make it clearer, it still broadly does the job. (This could, of course, be more about the translation than the original.) But then the remainder of the book is where we plunge back into the ultra-waffly material we have seen from Rovelli in the past, including far too much philosophy and even a toe-dip into hackneyed Eastern religious concepts. I found this part of the book pretty much indigestible and would only have given it two stars.

Two more minor moans - firstly, why is the book translated into English, but the title isn't? And secondly it's rather feeble that Rovelli makes the Schrödinger's cat experiment more fiddly by anaesthetising the imaginary animal, rather than killing it - squeamishness over a non-existent cat is just silly.

The first part of the book is sufficiently interesting that I think the whole is worth reading - and I know some of Rovelli's non-scientific readers will find the end section the best of it - but I wish he'd written two separate books, rather than pulling together the two very different parts. I would have loved a longer and more detailed book expanding on his interpretation of quantum physics.

[Jan-Maat]

I did not find this a compelling book to read.

Which is why it took me quite a long time to get through this brief essay. The printed text starts on page 9 and finishes on page 168, there are several blank pages between each of the seven chapters. Each page of text is printed in a large font, and there are diagrams and plenty of clear space. generally though I found after the initial chapters that ten pages was enough and anything else suddenly appeared more interesting. I think this was largely because what Rovelli was saying sparked several memories which caused me to quickly come to a conclusion about what he was writing.

I recalled that when several of my comrades studying Russian were flying to Russia they bought for the comfort of their souls a bottle of duty free Scotch whisky on the plane. The hoarded it, no doubt admiring on cold bleak nights it's colour in the bottle, until one night they went to a party. As they were offered various drinks they felt it only polite to offer round their own bottle. As the other party goers took a swig they would remark 'oh, this tastes just like Samogun, which was the local home brew which might be prepared in a bucket or a bath according a family recipe. It struck me as funny that a highly industrialised precisely made product, carefully monitored and matured for five years product managed to taste like something knocked up in somebodies kitchen or bathroom.

The connection with quantum mechanics seemed to me was that physicists over centuries with impressive investments of brain power, and experiments eventually get to a point where, at least for Rovelli, the insights of Nagarjuna and some of the pe-Socratic philosophers (ie people using raw brain power) make more sense in understanding the world that the physicists confronted with the behaviour of elements at the quantum level. Indeed it struck me that the problems that physicists had were due to their education and specialisation as physicists, which I guess created the expectation that the world would be explicable in a certain kind of way.

One of the problems that Rovelli mentioned was of the perspective of the observer. And this in turn reminded me of a religious stdies class at secondary school in which we wee told the story of the five blind men introduced to an elephant, each of them feeling a different part of this easy going elephant was certain that theyhad found some different to that of their fellows. And again it stuck me that the problem with undestand quantum mechanics was that physicists rather than school children or uneducated people were trying to explain it, those ignorant of physicists would probably do a better job of understand even if they might lack the tools to explain it to physicists.

Part of the book is semi biographical, putting Heisenberg, Bohr and co in their intellectual context, the rest of it lays out the area which for physicists are so problematic, the glaring omission , evidently typical for physicists, was that Rovelli does not seem to realise that he is also not an objective observer but a particular individual - figuratively speaking a blind man who only ever can grasp one part of the elephant and so he fails to show awareness that it is his own intellectual biography and life experiences that decide him against certain interpretations (many worlds theory for instance) and in favour of another (relationality).

My mother bought me this book for Christmas assuming from the title that it would be about Helgoland, this is a frequent problem of observer bias and the often described phenomenon of Schrodinger's book - that a book might be about almost anything based on its title and you never know what it is actually about until you open the covers and read it.

[Ray Nessly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read May 2022. Edited Dec 2022. Reposted because it "pairs" well with my current review of another Rovelli book.

3.5 stars
Teaser: This boring* review of a physics book contains zombies! Killer bunnies too!

[Or maybe this review is in quantum superposition of *boring/*not boring, depending on the observer. That's better, right? Or does it just prove true the old saying, "Nobody misunderstands quantum physics more than that Ray Nessly guy"?]
.......................................
Nobel winning physicist Richard Feynam: “I think I can safely say that NOBODY UNDERSTANDS quantum mechanics.”
I’m no exception. In this book the author references this quote, reiterates the notion in the dedication, and in case you missed it, goes on to say, in so many words, “Anyone who says they understand quantum physics is lying.” Again, no argument from me.

This is the second book (well, three as of 12/22) of Rovelli’s I’ve tackled, the previous being the Order of Time. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... I won't stop you from drive-by liking that review but you won't learn much. I failed to summarize what I learned from the book (so now I have to reread it!), a mistake I won't make with this review.

In both books, he invites you to skip paragraphs, entire chapters even, if they don’t work for you. I skipped very little of the book on Time. This book however was still more challenging, and also, when he got into the weeds, some weeds were more interesting to me than other weeds.

Tellingly, I even had trouble comprehending one of the chapters’ titles, much less its content: “The Unambiguous Description Of an Object Includes the Objects To Which It Manifests Itself”, which truly would make a nifty name for a band from ... Brooklyn? Probably.

THE PROMISED ZOMBIES/ KILLER BUNNY :
Consequently, I may have read only half of the words in this book. Still, I got quite a bit out of it. And while it was challenging, and a slow read (I broke it up by reading two novels and some stories), it certainly wasn’t the horrific experience Goodreads apparently expected it to be. Now, Goodreads is infamous for its bizarre book recommendations. Still, call me inflexible, but I thought it especially unhinged of them to imagine, that “Because you are reading Helgoland, Making Sense of the Quantum Revolution by the author of The Order of Time and Seven Brief Lessons on Physics”, that I really would like to also read Cell by Stephen King (a zombie novel), and Bunny, a horror novel. I grew tired of zombies long ago. In fact, one screening of one movie when I was in my twenties was sufficient. I haven’t voluntarily read/watched anything zombiesque since. (Well, one story in a graphic novel by Jason) But killer bunnies? Hmmm. Intriguing. At least it hasn’t been done to death. To my knowledge anyway.

Among the highlights of this book, for me, was his especially clear explanation (starting on p. 57) of the famous Scrodinger’s cat thought experiment, and why for many physicists it validates the Many Worlds theory, that is, that parallel worlds/universes exist. It’s too long to type, and at any rate contains symbols and other images that Mother Goodreads wouldn’t let me reproduce here. For an alternative, less complete explanation from a Guardian article, see below. (Something to remember though: Cat-lover Rovelli prefers the thought experiment to involve sleeping cat/awake cat, versus dead cat/alive cat. Which makes a lot of sense. Serves the same purpose and doesn’t harm any cats, albeit imaginary ones.) Rovelli, I should also add, doesn’t subscribe to the many worlds interpretation. He instead posits the somewhat less sexy “relational interpretation” also explained below.
I really liked the aesthetics of this book, too, namely the font with the beautiful super-long tail on the upper case Q, and the symbol in paragraph breaks, which resembles two lower case t’s, conjoined. I wish I could reproduce them here. As with the other Rovelli book, this one is beautifully written, and translators do a great job capturing his eloquence.

The rest of this review is entirely quotes from the book, and other sources, because they do a much better job than I could of capturing/explaining points that I’d like to remember down the road. So I don’t have to struggle to reread this book ever again. Hopefully any of y’all still here might get something out of it too.

From the Guardian: “According to some, including Heisenberg, there is no quantum reality beyond what is revealed by an experiment, by an act of observation. Take Erwin Schrödinger’s famous mythical cat trapped in a box with a vial of poison. It is argued that the cat is neither dead nor alive but in a ghostly mixture, or superposition, of states that range from being totally dead to completely alive and every conceivable combination in between until the box is opened. It is this act of observation, opening the box, which decides the fate of the cat. Some would argue that the cat was dead or alive, and to find out one just had to look in the box. Yet in the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum theory, which is popular among physicists, each and every possible outcome of a quantum experiment actually exists. Schrödinger’s cat is alive in one universe and dead in another.”

The NY Times: Instead of Many Worlds, “in Helgoland, Rovelli explains his “relational” interpretation, in which an electron, say, has properties only when it interacts with something else. When it’s not interacting, the electron is devoid of physical properties: no position, no velocity, no trajectory. Even more radical is Rovelli’s claim that the electron’s properties are real only for the object it’s interacting with and not for other objects. “The world fractures into a play of points of view that do not admit of a univocal, global vision,” Rovelli writes. Or, as he puts it, “Facts are relative.” It’s a dramatic denunciation of physics as a discipline that provides an objective, third-person description of reality.”

The New Statesman “Even when you understand the science, it’s quite hard to accept that rainbows are not real. You can think you can see one, and the person standing next to you agrees. But you are both being fooled. A rainbow is the pattern of coloured light that you perceive when you look out on a very specific set of atmospheric conditions. Because each of your eyes looks out at a slightly different angle, you actually perceive two different rainbows, one in each eye. And the person next to you sees a different rainbow again. None of those rainbows exist “out there”, outside of a mind.
If you can accept this, maybe you can accept the Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli’s perception of the universe. His new book, Helgoland, is an argument that nothing we see and experience actually exists. Just as the rainbow is a manifestation of the angle between you, some water droplets in the sky, and the sun, Rovelli tells us that the atoms, electrons, photons of light and other stuff of the universe manifest only in their interactions with each other. “Individual objects are the way in which they interact,” he says. Reality is “a vast web of interacting entities, of which we are a part”.
This “relational” reality is Rovelli’s favoured way of interpreting quantum theory, physicists’ best mathematical description of how the universe behaves at its most fundamental level.”

The following are quotes from the book itself, Helgoland:

“What happens is that the brain expects to see something, on the basis of what it knows and has previously occurred. The brain elaborates an image of what it predicts the eyes should see. This information is conveyed from the brain to the eyes, through intermediate stages. If a discrepancy is revealed between what the brain expects and the light arriving into the eyes, only then do the neural circuits send signals toward the brain. So images from around us do not travel from the eyes to the brain—only news of discrepancies regarding what the brain expects do.”

“What I see, in other words, is not a reproduction of the external world. It is what I expect, corrected by what I can grasp. The relevant input is not that which confirms what we already know, but that which contradicts our expectations.”

“The discovery of quantum theory, I believe, is the discovery that the properties of any entity are nothing other than the way in which that entity influences others. It exists only through its interactions. Quantum theory is the theory of how things influence each other. And this is the best description of nature that we have.

Sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...-----

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/08/bo...

https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/...

[Come Musica · Rating 5 out of 5]

Primo libro audioletto dell’anno. Ho voluto cominciare da qui. Un tuffo nella bellezza priva di fronzoli, nella matematica che incanta (e che fa da sfondo), nella fisica quantistica che smantella il comune pensiero. Un tuffo indietro negli anni, ai tempi in cui mi misi a studiare da sola fisica moderna per prepararmi al concorso. Siamo fatti di relazioni ed “esistiamo” nel momento in cui ci relazioniamo.
Rovelli fornisce il LA per incuriosire e per spingere ad approfondire chi ne voglia sapere di più.

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Not to fear rethinking the world is the power of science."
- Carlo Rovelli

[image error]

This was a nice little read. A good introduction to the history and basic concepts of quantum physics. Broken into chapters that look at: observables, probability, quanta, many worlds, hidden variables, physical collapse, indeterminacy, etc. This part was pretty basic and shallow. It is a lot packed into the first 100 pages (not including a bit of history and biography). But the 2nd half is the part I really liked. Rovelli posits his ideas, that centers on relationships (the two entangles particles and the observer) and it is here is poetry starts to peak. He is really looking at how we only exist in relationship to something else. It is beautiful and like all of Rovelli's books that beauty is found in the relationship between Physics and poetry/language.

So, not my favorite of his books, but I still don't regret the time (I mean what is time?) or money (I mean what is money?)

[Pierre Menard · Rating 2 out of 5]

Carlo Rovelli non ha bisogno di presentazioni essendo ben noto al grande pubblico: il lavoro di divulgazione che ormai svolge a tempo pieno è davvero apprezzabile, e dobbiamo rendergli grazie. Purtroppo, però, non sono riuscito ad apprezzare quest'ultima sua opera, che ho trovato disomogenea e confusa, a tratti superficiale, a tratti vaga, davvero troppo breve e sintetica per seminare qualche idea solida nel lettore. Lo stile di scrittura, sincero e limpido, mai pesante, è tra i pregi del libro.
Come spiega l'autore nella breve introduzione (che si apre di fronte all'immensità di qualcosa - il Mar Cinese Meridionale - secondo un consolidato cliché dei libri di divulgazione), egli intende introdurci alla meccanica quantistica (d'ora in poi QM), o piuttosto al mistero che ne sta alla base, e proporne una relativamente nuova interpretazione (quella "relazionale") per comprenderla alla luce del nostro rapporto con la realtà e svelare in parte il suddetto mistero.
La prima parte del libro presenta quindi la QM. Ho letto molte introduzioni divulgative alla QM, e devo dire che secondo me quella proposta da Rovelli è troppo esile e sbilanciata per permettere al lettore profano di cogliere gli ingredienti del mistero quantistico. Nel contempo egli mette sul piatto della bilancia una tale quantità di informazioni appena abbozzate da produrre una rapida indigestione. Faccio un esempio. A pag. 46 si cita l'esperimento di Stern-Gerlach, ma senza spiegarne la natura e il significato: Rovelli riesce a non citare mai lo spin e parla di "velocità di rotazione dell'elettrone". Che cosa ne può ricavare un lettore che ha una conoscenza superficiale dell'atomo? E come fa a collegare la bomba nucleare con la meccanica matriciale di Heisenberg, se mancano tutti i nessi logici? Certo, di fronte al contenuto delle pagine del libro, il lettore rimane meravigliato, ma secondo me con la sola meraviglia (pur necessaria) non si va molto avanti.
La seconda e la terza parte del libro prendono le mosse da elementi della QM (il principio di sovrapposizione, il paradosso del gatto, l'entanglement) per dare qualche sguardo rapido e superficiale alle varie interpretazioni della QM e analizzare con maggiore accuratezza la proposta di Rovelli, certamente interessante e degna di considerazione. Il problema della prima parte si ripresenta anche qui: dubito che un lettore profano possa davvero macinare così tante informazioni in pagine densissime, in cui però si tocca solo la superficie delle questioni aperte. Anche il lettore esperto (filosofo e/o scienziato) o semplicemente edotto rimane perplesso, perché non appena la discussione diventa interessante e ci si comincia a fare qualche domanda sulla concretezze delle idee presentate, Rovelli rimanda ad articoli e altre pubblicazioni contenute nelle note finali.
L'ultima parte è dichiaratamente filosofica: Rovelli affronta alcuni sviluppi dell'interpretazione relazionale e alcune sue conseguenze riguardo alla lettura della realtà. Anche in questo caso suggestioni, confronti e idee multidisciplinari piovono sul lettore come grandine: l'empiriocriticismo di Mach, la teoria socio-politica di Bogdanov e il suo scontro con Lenin, i problemi facile e difficile delle neuroscienze, il ruolo dei qualia, la teoria dell'informazione di Shannon, l'evoluzione in biologia, la visione del cervello, lo scontro fra idealismo e materialismo, tra empirismo e razionalismo etc. E non manca il consueto riferimento alle filosofie (discipline?) orientali che insegnano "la serenità, la leggerezza e la bellezza del mondo" (p. 156): qui, il riferimento è declinato nell'opera del monaco buddhista Nāgārjuna (II sec. d.C.) che si fa portatore di una forma di nichilismo cosmico, per cui non esiste A, non esiste non-A, non esiste la congiunzione di A e non-A, e neppure esiste la negazione della congiunzione di A e non-A (Wittgenstein gli fa un baffo!). Rovelli usa il pensiero di Nāgārjuna per giustificare una teoria di relazioni senza oggetti (o senza che la realtà degli oggetti sia necessaria): siamo sicuri che doveva arrivare fino all'India per trovare una simile giustificazione?
Certo, l'interpretazione relazionale è piuttosto suggestiva e per certi versi risulta davvero credibile se coniugata con la QM, ma in un paio di punti del testo mi è parso di intuire che la tesi rovelliana potrebbe essere più di natura linguistica ed epistemica, che non "metafisica" (in senso buono): in tal caso, il legame con la QM si indebolirebbe un po', soprattutto per chi come Rovelli rivendica la professione di "non filosofo" o, come lui stesso si definisce, "vile meccanico".
Al termine della lettura si avverte una sensazione di vacuità interiore (non so se dovuta più a Nāgārjuna o all'uso disinvolto di frasi sibilline in puro stile Bohr, come "ogni volta che qualcosa di solido è messo in questione, qualcos'altro si apre, e ci permette di vedere più lontano"), che spinge il lettore a scartabellare la bibliografia per saperne di più. Alla fine, forse era questo lo scopo del nostro libro...

[B. Rule · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think this is the last Rovelli I’ll read. I’ve read most if not all of his translated popular works, but it’s diminishing returns. This I found to be the weakest of the lot. Even its impoverished page count feels padded, and the stench of a cash-grab clings to it. The first two parts ostensibly describe quantum theory in its most general outline, but it’s a muddled effort even accounting for the counterintuitive science. Were this my first encounter with the concepts, I would be hopelessly lost. Instead, I just found myself irritable and impatient, waiting for a clarity indefinitely deferred. It’s a nigh-unforgivable sin given the groaning shelves of good physics writing out there.

The last bit is even worse. Here, Rovelli play-acts as a philosopher. He is, charitably speaking, far afield of his areas of expertise. While the relational interpretation of quantum theory is fascinating, Rovelli makes a hash of how it may answer the questions of metaphysics, epistemology, and theory of mind. He tries to wave away the hard problem of consciousness but I still have no idea why he thinks a perspectival approach moots the issue. He acknowledges the ephemerality of entities and then immediately reverts to material entities as causal explanations. He bags on western philosophy to pump up Nagarjuna, but he is apparently ignorant of the rich vein of apophatic thinking that reaches many of the same insights. (Have you even read Plotinus, bro??) He dismisses idealism and dualism in a single sentence without even a pretense of argument. I don’t begrudge him his position, and if it were written as an intellectual autobiography, it would be fine. But to act like this is a real work of philosophical reasoning is just embarrassing, really. I did think his chapter on Bogdanov was interesting. I appreciate his efforts to marry the scientific method to a sense of wonder, but I felt very little in this short but self-indulgent text. I thank him for his earlier books which I enjoyed, but I’m getting off the Rovelli train at this stop.

[Karina Padureanu · Rating 5 out of 5]

As fi vrut sa citesc o astfel de carte cand eram in liceu, cu siguranta mi-ar fi deschis ochii asupra lumii.

Sper din suflet ca in scoala romaneasca de azi sa se fi schimbat lucrurile si sa se explice elevilor ce sta dincolo de formule, de teoremele si teoriile enuntate sec.

Si ca exista destui profesori pasionati care sa explice macar in parte asa cum o face Carlo Rovelli.

Nu pot spune ca acum mi-e limpede, nici pe departe, desi este expus totul clar si frumos, cu exemple, (insasi autorul ne avertizeaza ca, de fapt, mai curand explica de ce este atat de greu de inteles teoria cuantica). Totusi, s-a facut lumina in mintea mea in multe privinte si sint fascinata de stranietatea, maretia si misterul teoriei cuantice.

Este dificil de perceput cum de ajunge sa observi, ca sa schimbi ce se petrece si ca realitatea nu este asa cum o descrie fizica clasica.

Am fost uimita sa aflu ca Nagarjuna, un filozof indian din secolul II a scris o carte in care se intalnesc principii ce rezoneaza cu fizica cuantica (Intelepciunea caii de mijloc).

Citind cartea, am avut aceleasi senzatii, de a fi inteles ceva magnific, de a fi "descoperit" ceva unic, ca si in cazul biografiei lui Einstein (Walter Isaacson) si "Istoria bombei atomice" de Castellani si Gigante.

" Nu suntem decat imagini ale unor imagini. Realitatea, inclusiv noi insine, nu e decat in val subtire si fragil, dincolo de care...nu mai e nimic."

"Puterea stiintei este absenta fricii se a rasturna ordinea lumii."

[John Hatley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Every book I read by Carlo Rovelli about his own discovery of quantum physics leaves me more bewildered and fascinated than before. The feeling might even be described as “the more I learn, the less I know”.

[Gianni · Rating 4 out of 5]

Al di là dell’esposizione dei concetti teorici di base della teoria dei quanti, la parte che mi è sembrata più interessante è il percorso che il vile meccanico Rovelli, come si autodefinisce nel libro, disegna saltando dalla scala micro di fotoni, onde ed elettroni a quella macro dei sistemi, con gli agganci alle altre discipline del sapere, certamente chimica, biologia e filosofia, e le confutazioni di alcuni modelli interpretativi decisamente accattivanti e coinvolgenti che lasciano trasparire in modo onesto anche una certa scelta di campo di pensiero (non di ideologia).
Rovelli parte da Heisemberg e dai ragazzi di Copenaghen, passa per Bogdanov (politico, medico, filosofo, rivoluzionario russo, scrittore e autore del fantascientifico Stella Rossa , ispiratore del Proletkult sovietico e protagonista dell’omonimo libro Proletkult di Wu Ming) e il monaco buddhista e filosofo indiano Nagarjuna, fino a presentare una visione del mondo fatto di relazioni, che ”fa saltare l’idea che il mondo debba essere costituito da una sostanza che ha attributi e ci forza a pensare tutto in termini di relazioni. Questo, io credo, è quello che abbiamo scoperto del mondo con i quanti.”
Due i punti chiave che Rovelli sottolinea, ”non ci sono proprietà al di fuori delle interazioni” e le proprietà sono solo relative, ”le proprietà di un oggetto che sono reali rispetto a un secondo oggetto non lo sono necessariamente rispetto a un terzo.”, che sintetizza scrivendo ”la migliore descrizione della realtà che abbiamo trovato è in termini di eventi che tessono una rete di interazioni. Gli ‘enti’ non sono che effimeri nodi di questa rete. Le loro proprietà non sono determinate che nel momento di queste interazioni e lo sono solo in relazione ad altro: ogni cosa è solo ciò che si rispecchia in altre. Ogni visione è parziale. Non esiste un modo di vedere la realtà che non dipenda da una prospettiva. Non c’è un punto di vista assoluto, universale. I punti di vista tuttavia comunicano, i saperi sono in dialogo fra loro e con la realtà, nel dialogo si modificano, si arricchiscono, convergono, la nostra comprensione della realtà si approfondisce.”

[India M. Clamp · Rating 4 out of 5]

Problems often give rise to solutions, and in this case it was Werner Heisenberg who was enslaved with hay fever that plagued him chronically. From this we stumble upon the title of this book, as Helgoland was the solution that was treeless. He was only 23 on the Northern Coast of Germany where he found illumination sans distractions. Nature provided clues as to structures, despite the rants and arguments by Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger---1933 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Bohr (whom Einstein termed as the Big God) deduced that an electron circling the nucleus of an atom could change its orbit in some magical way. And on June 7, Heisenberg used a most rudimentary method of measurement to disprove Schrödingers theory via matrices. In the Quantum World, reality is a light and an illusive entity in which every interaction becomes an event assisting us to construct reality. All is dependent upon another and measured in relation to the other object.

“I argue that the best strategy for understanding quantum gravity is to build a picture of the physical world where the notion of time plays no role at all."
---Carol Rovelli

Influence and its products delineates "veritas." Relationships may be calculated by the movement/measurement of leaping electrons colorful L-emissions. Light is governed by laws. And within we find the connections created from causality. One event may give rise to another. To think that chaos is a natural state of being may be a way to comfort those living in a created "tartarus."

[8stitches 9lives · Rating 5 out of 5]

Helgoland is a startling and fascinating new look at quantum theory, from the bestselling author of Seven Brief Lessons on Physics and The Order of Time. Helgoland is a bare, treeless island in the North Sea where the twenty-three-year-old Werner Heisenberg made the crucial breakthrough for the creation of quantum mechanics, in June 1925, setting off a century of scientific revolution. Full of alarming ideas (ghost waves, distant objects that seem to be magically connected, cats that appear both dead and alive), quantum physics has led to countless discoveries and technological advancements. Today our understanding of the world is based on this theory, yet it is still profoundly mysterious. As scientists and philosophers continue to fiercely debate the meaning of the theory, Rovelli argues that its most unsettling contradictions can be explained by seeing the world as fundamentally made of relationships rather than substances. We and everything around us exist only in our interactions with one another. This bold idea suggests new directions for thinking about the structure of reality and even the nature of consciousness. One of the world's most renowned and prominent theoretical physicists, Carlo Rovelli has entranced millions of readers with his singular perspective on the cosmos. In Helgoland, he examines the enduring enigma of quantum theory. The quantum world Rovelli describes is as beautiful as it is unnerving.

Rovelli makes learning about quantum mechanics an almost psychedelic experience. Shifting our perspective once again, he takes us on a riveting journey through the universe so we can better comprehend our place in it. This book not only reconstructs, with formidable clarity, the adventurous and controversial growth of quantum theory, making its crucial passages evident, even for those who ignore it, but it is inserted into a new vision, where a world made up of substances, a world made up of relationships is replaced, which respond to each other in an inexhaustible game of mirrors. A vision that leads us to explore, in an amazing perspective, fundamental questions still unresolved, from the constitution of nature to that of ourselves, which we are part of nature. It is a scintillating read but make no mistake, while it is accessible to the non-scientifically trained, it requires focus and you may often find yourself having to re-read parts in order to fully grasp what's been said. Rovelli takes some of the most complicated concepts and presents them in such an intelligible, crystal clear and eminently readable fashion that you cannot fail to find the book engrossing. I was also very pleasantly surprised that there was laugh-out-loud humour interspersed throughout and that I struggled with putting it down. An information-rich, compelling and thought-provoking read; it really has you considering your place in this vast universe, human existence and the nature of reality. Highly recommended.

[Davide Orsato · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ci sono moltissimi libri introduttivi alla meccanica quantistica. Solo Rovelli, però, ci poteva infilare un capitolo (interessantissimo) sul contribuito filosofico di Mach, su Bogdanov e Lenin

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 5 out of 5]

The bizarre behavior of the quantum world can be best exemplified by the “measurement problem.” To understand the measurement problem, think of an electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom. Well, it turns out that electrons do not exactly orbit the nucleus; rather, they exist in superpositions, which is to say, they have no real-world position or trajectory until you measure them—only probabilistic tendencies to be in one location or another.

The measurement problem, then, asks the following question: How do particles go from a mathematical state of possibilities when we’re not observing them (described via the wave function) to a single physical object with a definite position when we are observing them? How is it that our act of observation seems to change the properties of particles?

While the mathematics of superposition, entanglement, and the measurement problem is complex, in simple terms, interpreting the findings of quantum physics ultimately comes down to how you reconcile our apparent ability to alter physical states simply by the act of observation. Why would nature care whether or not we’re observing or measuring it?

This isn’t an issue, of course, for classical physics. If we know the current position and trajectory of a planet, for example, we can calculate its future position with a high degree of accuracy—whether or not we observe the planet on its entire journey. Our act of observation does not alter the path the planet takes. Why then, does our act of observation alter the path of the electron, as confirmed in countless experiments?

Some physicists attempt to solve the problem by postulating the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes or positing the existence of hidden variables, which are, by definition, beyond the reach of empirical verification. But what if the answer is simpler and more direct, an answer that takes the findings of quantum physics at face value without adding any extraneous theory or mathematical structures?

This is the brilliant path taken by Carlo Rovelli in his latest book, Helgoland: Making Sense of the Quantum Revolution. Rovelli explains why “the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics'' is most likely to be true and has the power to not only explain the findings of quantum physics but also to update our entire conception of the world. Relational quantum mechanics, as Rovelli describes it, is based on the following propositions:

1. Nothing exists independently without context. Any object or entity is fully dependent on its environment and the world around it—including historical processes—and cannot be understood except in terms of its effect on or its interactions with other entities.

2. The human body, mind, and brain are all part of nature, not separate from or above it.

3. There is no universal, objective perspective whereby one can view the totality of reality. Human beings, begin part of nature, observe nature from within nature.

4. Since everything is connected—and objects cannot be understood except in relation to the effects they have on other objects—the properties of objects arise only in the course of relations and interactions.

This is to say, the properties of an electron change when we observe them because the properties of objects only arise in the course of interactions with other objects. The other object, in this case, is the scientist making the measurement, but of course, the scientist is herself part of nature, not separate from it. Quantum mechanics describes the properties of interconnected objects—the electron, the measuring device, the scientist—all of which are part of nature and all of which are interacting with each other.

Whereas we can ignore the role of the observer in classical physics—the world of everyday objects—we cannot do so in the atomic realm because everything, including the observer, are part of the interconnected fabric of reality, a reality that is artificially fragmented in the macroscopic world of everyday objects but that does not differentiate between the observer and the observed at the smallest of scales. We impact the properties of electrons when we observe them because it cannot be any other way; at the smallest of scales, properties only exist in terms of relations.

I’ll pause to note two things: (1) This is my interpretation as a non-scientist of Rovelli’s argument, and (2) therefore I can’t claim to be capable of making any kind of sophisticated scientific defense or critique of his overall position. All I can say is, as an interested layman in the subject, and having read several books on the subject by many authors with varying positions, that this is the best explanation I have come across and one that almost makes me feel like I understand the subject. Almost.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that Rovelli has solved the problem and the case is now closed. One criticism of Rovelli’s position worth mentioning is the idea that the findings of quantum mechanics do not give us enough information to be making any kind of proclamations about the ultimate nature of reality in the first place. One might point out that our cognitive and perceptual limitations grant us only limited and superficial access to reality and that quantum physics—like all branches of science—provides us with rough approximations that allow us to make reasonably accurate predictions that we can then incorporate into various technological applications, but as for what this tells us about fundamental reality, we can’t really know.

This “instrumentalist” approach to quantum mechanics—memorably captured in the phrase “shut up and calculate”—is not particularly satisfying, but it doesn't mean that it’s wrong, either. If reality as we perceive it is like a computer interface outfitted with icons, then zooming in on the icons (objects) to view the pixels (particles) won’t tell us anything about the underlying operations of the computer itself (reality). It could be that reality at the deepest levels is entirely inaccessible to our senses or to the extension of our senses via technology. If I’m honest, I often find myself leaning in this direction.

But then I remind myself that this is not historically how science works. To conclude that certain aspects of nature are unknowable before we know them is a defeatist position. While the instrumentalist approach may turn out to be true, we would do ourselves a favor by assuming that it isn’t, so that scientific investigation can continue. And if quantum mechanics can ever become comprehensible, it seems to me that it will do so based on some version of Rovelli’s relational interpretation.

[Vlăduțu Alexandru · Rating 3 out of 5]

Problema fizicii cuantice nu este una matematică sau al unui caracter fantomatic. Lucrurile apar si dispar datorită faptului că mintea noastră nu este antrenată pentru astfel de concepte.

La fel cum oamenii nu pot zbura datorită genelor lor , tot din cauza acelorași gene ei nu pot percepe misterul principiilor cuantice.

Carte este bună dar spre final se abate de la subiect dând în concepte de epistemologie.

[Kevin Lopez (on sabbatical) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Always love Carlo Rovelli’s books; his genius is his ability to write crisp, uncluttered and lucid prose that allows the reader to—for some fleeting moments, at least—feel the poetry and wonder which lie beneath the surface of the advanced physics about which he writes.

4.5 rounded up to 5 for his (as always) eclectic and spot-on epigraphs with which he always begins his chapters. (Although I didn’t enjoy the quotes here as much as the quotes from Horace’s Odes in “The Order of Time.” And any physicist who quotes from Rilke’s Duino Elegies is pretty fucking great in my opinion.

“Cosmic Koans” is another popular physics book published a few years ago by another author (whose name escapes me at the moment) that I’d love to read next; from all I’ve read about it it sounds positively Rovellian. (Maybe in time Rovelli will get his name adjective-ized, a là Rabelais/Rabelaisian! 👀)

[Rachel (Kalanadi) · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars

[Nixi92 · Rating 4 out of 5]

La scrittura di Rovelli è molto suggestiva: riesce a parlare di quanti ed entanglement senza annoiare. Tuttavia, è un testo un po' superficiale, non adatto a chi preferirebbe leggere un paper più rigoroso. Piuttosto è ottimo per chi crede di non aver mai amato la fisica perché troppo complicata e lontana dalla realtà. Infatti Rovelli riesce a mescolare fisica, psicologia, neuroscienze, semiotica, teorie della comunicazione e, soprattutto, filosofia per raccontare una storia avvincente e più concreta di quanto si possa pensare.

[Matt Quann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here I thought that picking up a slim science book would make for a quick read. Alas, not at all! Helgoland does a good job explaining some of the difficulties I've had in trying to grasp the basics of quantum physics. Did I understand it all? Hell no! But as much as it is a primer for people with a baseline level of physics knowledge, it succeeds. I'd like to understand a bit better the practical applications of quantum physics, but at least I now have a basis from which I can build.

[Virginia Cornelia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ajunsa la Carturesti sa gasesc o carte despre Niels Bohr, am descoperit intamplator "Helgoland. Cum sa intelegem teoria cuantica "
Si am ramas fascinata atat de poveste, dar si de arta de povestitor a lui Carlo Rovelli.

Fizician teoretician, specializat in fizica cuantica si fondator al teoriei gravitatiei cuantice cu bucle ( whatever that means 😀😍 ) a scris numeroase carti de popularizare a fizicii, Helgoland fiind cea mai recenta ( 2020).

Plina de personaje necunoscute mie ( Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, Schrodinger) autorul spune povestea descoperirii teoriei cuantice intr-un ton amuzant si extrem de interesant si incearca sa explice teoria prin prisma relatiilor dintre obiecte/ entitati.

"Cred ca descoperirea teoriei cuantelor este descoperirea faptului ca proprietatile fiecarui lucru nu sunt altceva decat felul in care acel lucru le influenteaza pe celelalte.
Fara interactiune, nu exista proprietati.
Proprietatile sunt doar relative.

Nu exista o lume cuantica. Exista doar o descriere cuantica abstracta. Este o gresala sa credem ca sarcina fizicii este sa descrie cum este Natura. Fizica se ocupa doar cu ce putem spune despre Natura.
Teoria nu ne spune unde se afla o particula de materie cand nu o privim, ne spune care este probabilitatea sa o gasim intr un loc, daca o observam."

Ce mi s-a parut incredibil este faptul ca Heisenberg a ajuns la niste concluzii esentiale in dezvoltarea teoriei cand avea doar 23 de ani.

Bohr afirmase ca electronii se roteau in jurul nucleului doar pe anumite orbite, aflate la anumite distante precise de nucleu, cu anumite energii precise si apoi faceau un salt magic pe o alta orbita.

Obsedat de idee, Heisenberg a tot incercat sa găsească forta rationala ce ii obliga pe electroni sa faca aceste salturi.
Si, intr o dimineata de iunie, pe insula Helgoland, are o revelatie.

"Einstein aratase ca si cele mai inradacinate convingeri pot fi gresite. Ceea ce pare evident poate sa nu fie corect. Abandonarea presupunerilor care par evidente ne poate ajuta sa intelegem mai bine. Sa ne bizuim pe ce vedem, nu pe ce credem ca trebuie sa existe".

Heisenberg a venit cu ideea revolutionara .

Helgoland este cea mai buna carte pe care am citit o anul acesta. Este grozava!!

Pe langa detalii despre cei implicati in dezvoltarea teoriei si explicarea teoriei ( pentru incepatori si avansati )Rovelli vine si cu reflectii filosofice , citate din Leonard Cohen, Shakespeare, Quine si Ullian, dar si o afinitate catre textele sacre indiene, întocmai ca Bohr si Schrodinger si noi informatii despre constiinta in legatura cu teoria cuantica.

Mi se pare ca felul in care a fost conceputa teoria cuantica, prin aportul atator oameni straluciti, dezbateri si controverse, demonstreaza ca este fals sa spui "great minds think alike" si corect este marile minti se completeaza reciproc.

Ps. Am citit ca o alta contribuție importanta a lui Schrodinger a constat intr o serie de prelegeri -What is life - prelegeri care au fost ascultate si de Watson si Crick, care, cativa ani mai tarziu au descoperit structura chimica a moleculei ce codifica genele - ADN ul.

[Federica Rampi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ogni volta che qualcosa di solido è messo in questione, qualcos’altro si apre, e ci permette di vedere più lontano. Osservare lo sciogliersi della sostanza, di quanto appariva solido come la roccia, ci rende più lieve, a me pare, la transitorietà e il fluire dolce della vita”. 

Helgoland è l’isola sacra senza alberi nel Mare del Nord, dove nel 1925 Werner Heisenberg, uno dei progenitori della teoria quantistica, trovò l'ispirazione per quello che rimane uno dei concetti scientifici più innovativi, dando il via a un secolo di rivoluzione in questo campo
"Helgoland" è la storia della fisica quantistica e dei suoi brillanti giovani fondatori che sarebbero diventati alcuni dei più famosi vincitori di Nobel, perché come scrive Rovelli, la teoria dei quanti è stata un gioco di squadra

A Helgoland, Rovelli esamina l'enigma della teoria quantistica e questo mondo è tanto bello quanto ipnotizzante .

Le onde, le particelle, la granularità , gli oggetti distanti che sembrano essere collegati, gatti che sembrano sia morti che vivi, la fisica quantistica ha portato a innumerevoli scoperte e progressi tecnologici. Oggi la nostra comprensione del mondo si basa su questa teoria, eppure è ancora profondamente misteriosa


Rovelli dà un senso alla rivoluzione quantistica entrando in un territorio inesplorato: intreccia la teoria quantistica con le idee filosofiche, incluso il pensiero buddista, (“Oriente e Occidente hanno forse ancora cose da dirsi. Come nei migliori matrimoni.”), il problema della coscienza e persino le discussioni tra Lenin e Bogdanov al tempo della rivoluzione russa.

Rovelli sostiene che le contraddizioni più inquietanti possono essere spiegate vedendo il mondo come fatto di relazioni, non di sostanze.
Noi e tutto ciò che ci circonda esiste solo nelle nostre interazioni reciproche .
Questa idea audace suggerisce nuove direzioni per comprendere la struttura della realtà e persino la natura della coscienza.
Spostando la prospettiva, Rovelli guida in un avvincente viaggio nell'universo in modo da capire meglio il posto che in esso occupiamo.

Il mondo quantistico raccontato da Carlo Rovelli è fatto di avvenimenti, eventi discontinui, senza permanenza.
È un mondo intricato e fragile, perché la nostra organizzazione mentale è uno strumento maldestro con cui navigare per i misteri infiniti e capire la natura, ma Rovelli spiega in modo talmente chiaro che per me (che ho appena le basi della Fisica), è stato impossibile perdermi o annoiarmi.

In “Helgoland “c’è la fisica e tanto altro: la dimensione emotiva, umanistica, letteraria, poetica, personale.
E sono queste, a mio parere, le pagine più suggestive del libro, una lettura incredibile e travolgente fatta parallelamente con l’esperienza Audible, che mi ha aiutata, grazie alla voce ferma e calma di Rovelli, ad apprezzare di più e ancora una volta, quello che con leggerezza ed eleganza, ha da insegnarci e da dirci su questo piccolo grande mondo.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Physics and philosophy. I enjoy Rovelli's distinct writing style of physics and its big-picture ramifications. I invite you to read a few of the quotes I've chosen from the later philosophical part of the book to taste Rovelli's unique insight and love for physics.

The book is divided into three parts.
1. Heisenberg's idea of quantum theory when he isolated on Helgoland in the summer of 1925
2. Physics - Superposition; Many Worlds; Collapsing wave function; Indeterminacy; Entanglement
3. The philosophical ramifications

p 150 Buddhist philosophy by Nagarjuna says "simply that there is nothing that exists in itself independently from something else. The resonance with quantum mechanics is immediate".

p 162 Who has never wondered, in some form or other: "If the world is made of simple matter, particles in motion in space, how is it that thoughts, subjectivity, values, beauty, meaning... come about?" How can 'simple matter' produce colors, emotions and the burning lively sensation of existing? How is it that we can know and learn, be moved and amazed, read a book, understand, and even come to question how matter itself works?

p 190 As the American philosopher Erik C. Banks writes, "However mysterious the mind-body problem may be for us, we should always remember that it is a solved problem for nature. All we have to do is figure out that solution by naturalistic means."

p 201 Physics seemed to me the place where the weave between the structure of reality and the structure of thought was closest, the place where this intertwinement was subject to the incandescent test of continuous evolution. The journey undertaken has been more surprising and more of an adventure than I expected. Space, time, matter, thought, the whole of reality has redesigned itself before my eyes, as in some vast kaleidoscope. Quantum physics, more than the immensity of the universe and the discovery of its great history, more even than the extraordinary vision of Einstein, has been for me the heart of this radical questioning of our mental maps of reality.

p 202 There is a sense of the vertiginous - of freedom, happiness, lightness - in the vision of the world that we are offered by the discovery of quanta.
You do look , my son, in a moved sort,
As if you were dismay'd. be cheerful sir. (The Tempest - Shakespeare)
In the end, the youthful curiosity that drew me toward physics, like a child following a magic flute, has led me to finding more enchanted castles than I could have dreamed of. The world of quantum theory that I have attempted to describe, opened by a young man's journey to the Sacred Island (of Helgoland) in the North Sea, seems extraordinarily beautiful to me.

[Luca Masera · Rating 5 out of 5]

Helgoland è un’isola dell’arcipelago tedesco affacciata sul Mare del Nord dove un giovanissimo Heisenberg, in perfetto equilibrio tra misteriose riflessioni filosofiche e insondabili speculazioni fisiche, a inizio del secolo scorso diede vita alla fisica quantistica. Da lì in poi ogni altro grande scienziato che si rispetti (in primis Schrödiger e il suo celebre gatto) ha provato ad allargare i confini della scienza cercando nuove interpretazioni sempre più spinte rispetto a questo miracolo della natura: i quanti.


Ammetto a cuor leggere di aver capito, ovviamente per limiti miei, una pagina su tre di Helgoland ma, nonostante ciò, il mistero che si cela dietro alla materia di cui è fatta la realtà, mi è risultato molto più chiaro di tante altre scoperte – anche meno complesse – con cui siamo in contatto nel nostro quotidiano. Il merito di ciò è da attribuire senza dubbio a Carlo Rovelli che non è solo un famoso fisico ma anche un ottimo comunicatore: il livello dei contenuti non si abbassa mai, ma anzi si alza sempre in un perfetto mix (scientifico) di contenuti, chiarezza e, non da ultima, simpatia.


Una frase che secondo me è in grado di rappresentare meravigliosamente la "follia" dei quanti è quando Rovelli dice «Ma questa è la scienza: un’esplosione di nuovi modi per pensare il mondo. È la capacità che abbiamo di rimettere costantemente in discussione i nostri concetti. È la forza visionaria di un pensiero ribelle e critico capace di modificare le sue stesse basi concettuali, capace di ridisegnare il mondo da zero.»

[Flavia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Questa fisica quantistica! Un discorso sulla Natura delle cose che assomiglia più ai deliri di un tizio sotto effetto di acidi che a una seria teoria scientifica. Epperò funziona. Funziona anche se gli stessi fisici non hanno idea del come e del perchè. Roba estremamente complicata per menti estremamente fuori dagli schemi. Eppure Rovelli colpisce nel segno e riesce a fornirne una visione (non una spegazione eh, la fisica quantistica non si spiega) afferrabile anche da menti ordinarie come la mia. Ho letteralmente divorato questo bel libriccino, il cui merito e scopo, io credo, risiede nella volontà di sdoganare un argomento tanto complesso e presentarlo alle masse perchè si inizi a interessarsene a tutti i livelli. Rovelli rende pop la fisica quantistica! Unico appunto che mi permetto di fare all'autore sono le sue conclusioni sul pensiero di Nāgārjuna, nella seconda parte del libro. Rovelli vede nella dottrina della "vacuità" (śunyātā) la riprova della totale assenza di un fondamento primario delle cose, in quanto le cose esisterebbero solo in quanto in relazione le une alle altre (come nell'entanglement quantistico). In realtà il Buddhismo chiama "vuote" le cose che la mente ordinaria si sforza di comprendere, sottintendendo che per spingersi oltre sia necessaria una mente non ordinaria, non più umana, non più vincolata al pensiero e alle sue dinamiche cognitive. Un nuovo modo di vedere le cose. A brave new mind for a brave new world. Esattamente quello che serve alla fisica quantistica.

[Gauss74 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Non avevo voglia di scrivere questo commento eppure mi sentivo obbligato a farlo, ed eccomi qui: quando un libro ti resta nel cuore, è difficile il doppio mettere per iscritto anche solo l'idea di quello che ti ha lasciato, ma è anche il doppio necessario.

Carlo Rovelli è il punto di riferimento della gravità quantistica a Loop, che è il cardine della fisica teorica ed uno dei riferimenti dell'umanità intera per recuperare il senso da dare al mondo. Quel senso che è andato perso con la catastrofe ultravioletta e con la nascita della teoria della relatività generale da una parte, e della meccanica quantistica dall'altra.
Ma soprattutto è un uomo dal cuore grande. Aperto a tutte le culture del mondo, paladino della inclusività ad ogni costo nell' Italia della lega, scontroso e distante dai potenti, affabile e premuroso con chi è debole, con chi non sa ma vuole capire. Consapevole che la conosenza è un diritto, lui in odor di premio nobel è capace di presentarsi in sandali e maglietta a decine di manifestazioni di divulgazione per spiegare, per offrire alla gente che non ha la possibilità di studiare il nocciolo, il segreto delle nuove scoperte.

Questo "Helgoland" è il suo manifesto.

Nella prima parte racconta ai profani il significato profondo della meccanica quantistica quale è venuto delineandosi alla sua nascita, man mano che geni di vent'anni del calibro di Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Pauli, Born, Dirac ne tracciavano i fantasmagorici confini sotto la sapiente guida di Einstein e Bohr. Nella seconda ne presenta i limti e gli ultimi sviluppi, arrivando a quella interpretazione relazionale che ne è la rivoluzione più importante.
L'interpretazione relazionale ci dice che nel mondo che ci circonda le cose in sè non esistono. Ogni oggetto, ogni persona, dalle particelle beta fino agli ammassi di galassie, non sono che un fascio di relazioni, senza le quali nulla ha senso. Da qui a fare un parallelismo con la politica e la società il passo è breve. Un uomo che vive chiuso in se stesso nega la sua dignità di uomo. Un cittadino che non si adoperi per uno stato più inclusivo nega la sua dignità di cittadino. Perchè non siamo che un fascio di relazioni, e senza relazioni come uomini e donne siamo il nulla.

Da ingegnere cinquantenne affascinato dalla fsica, cosa mi ha lasciato questo libro? Tanto.

La prima parte racconta la nascita della meccanica quantistica e la divisione dei fisici tra la squadra dei "Nichilisti" (questo nome è mio), che negano l'esistenza di una realtà che vada oltre la misura e degli "statistici" (nome ufficiale) che insistono in una realtà solida al di là della percezione, e cercano di ingabbiarne la natura sfuggente con complesse ipotesi teoriche (molti mondi, variabili nascoste, ecc). Tra i primi Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born. Tra i secondi Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger, Paul Dirac. Se parliamo di nomi, davvero impossibile decidere, ma io da cinquantenne e da cristiano facevo il tifo per i secondi.

Intanto perchè Einstein fu personaggio incredibile che suscita isntintiva simpatia e Heisenberg fu filonazista vergognoso e nefando che cercò di consegnare l'atomica a Hitler, ma soprattutto perchè un mondo comunque ordinato e definito anche se impossibile da comprendere appieno lo vedevo molto più rassicurante di un mondo di cui abbiamo capito appieno la natura ma che sprofonda nel caos. Carlo Rovelli mi ha fatto cambiare idea. Il mondo quantistico è bellissimo, e lo è proprio perchè non ha fondamenta. E' uno sfolgorante caleidoscopio di colori in costante mutamento, che reagisce in modo imprevendibile ad ogni nostro relazionarci con esso, anzi, la SUA NATURA è proprio relazionarsi con noi. Niente a che vedere con il freddo mondo della statistica e della teoria della relatività, che è solido ed affidabile ma congelato; un mondo nel quale neppure il tempo passa, nel quale per la libertà non c'è posto.
La prima metà di Helgoland per me è stata appassionante, per chi voglia capire la fisica di adesso è preziosissima. Perchè spiega in modo chiaro e per nulla noioso quello che è strettamente necessario sapere per andare avanti, e nulla più.

Il problema che nasce (in mezzo a tanti altri che sono interessanti ma più tecnici, e non mi sembra opportuno citarli qui), che avevo già intuito ma che qui trova conferma, è che mostrato così il mondo quantistico sembra umano, troppo umano. Davvero noi siamo in grado di cambiare la natura intima dell'universo con una misura? Sembrerebbe che l'universo sia consapevole che noi lo stiamo misurando, e che si comporti di conseguenza. Si capisce, che non ha senso. Perchè al pianeta Gliese 781 che ruota attorno alla sua stella a centinaia di anni luce da noi, dovrebbe importare qualcosa delle nostre misure? Perchè ad un elettrone che viaggia a tre quarti della velocità della luce in un acceleratore di sincrotrone dovrebbe importare qualcosa di noi? In altre parole, che cosa fa di una relazione una misura? Cosa vuol dire misurare, visto che una misura cambia il mondo in modo così radicale?

La risposta è l'interpretazione relazionale. Per la quale se una misura è una relazione che cambia la natura di ciò che viene misurato, tutto ciò che avviene nell'universo è una misura. Qualsiasi tipo di evento su qualsiasi scala, da quella cosmica a quella atomica, cambia la natura degli enti che partecipano a quell'evento, NEL SENSO CHE GLI ENTI SONO QUELL'EVENTO. Tutto ciò che esiste nell'universo non è che l'insieme delle sue relazioni, e non c'è niente dietro. E' un universo davvero instabile ed insensato, ma vivo, mobile e bellissimo.
Con l'insensatezza però bisogna farci i conti. La scienza ci fa i conti ammettendo che non c'è più l'ambizione di spiegarci come è fatto il mondo, ma di spiegarci come il mondo bisogna pensarlo per capirci qualcosa, che è molto diverso, perchè siamo coinvolti nella natura dell'universo come esseri pensanti, l'universo non è qualcosa di separato da noi.

La seconda parte, nella quale si parla di filosofia, politica e società, è meno incisiva (Rovelli non si trova nel suo ambiente), ma più importante, perchè fa un passo indietro il fisico e viene avanti l'uomo. Se gli uomini e le donne di oggi vogliono organizzarsi in una società che sia il più vicina possibile alla loro natura profonda, quella società non può avere l'esclusività del mondo liberale. Il classismo del liberalismo radicale è contro natura, perchè cancella le relazioni. Se non siamo che un fascio di relazioni, la nostra vita sarà tanto più piena e felice quanto più saranno numerose e diverse, quelle relazioni: la multiculturalità è una ricchezza, la diversità è una risorsa. L'amore viene prima, perchè l'amore è la relazione più intensa ed importante di tutte, e che più di tutte ci restituisce senso. Essere indifferenti equivale a non essere. Salvini è uno stolto.

Rovelli è un ateo impenitente e si capisce perchè: la teologica completezza della rivelazione, i precetti religiosi immutabili sono un congelamento, una fredda obbedienza che vanno contro la fantasmagorica mutevolezza del cosmo. Tuttavia non sembra rendersi conto che proprio l'interpretazione relazionale, che mette l'apertura agli altri enti come fondamento dell'essere, è il più spettacolare segno di conferma della visione cristiana che abbia mai incontrato negli ultimi anni. Un ente fisico che non è in relazione con gli altri enti fisici, è un essere che non è. Un essere umano che non ama gli altri, è un uomo che non è.

Per dirla alla maniera dei social network, è l'amore che dà senso al mondo, lo dice la scienzah.