What do you think?
Rate this book
Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness
In trying to understand the atom, physicists built quantum mechanics and found, to their embarrassment, that their theory intimately connects consciousness with the physical world. Quantum Enigma explores what that implies and why some founders of the theory became the foremost objectors to it. Authors Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner explain all of this in non-technical terms with help from some fanciful stories and anecdotes about the theory's developers. They present the quantum mystery honestly, with an emphasis on what is and what is not speculation. Quantum Enigma's description of the experimental quantum facts, and the quantum theory explaining them, is undisputed. Interpreting what it all means, however, is controversial. Every interpretation of quantum physics encounters consciousness. Rosenblum and Kuttner therefore turn to exploring consciousness itself--and encounter quantum physics. Free will and anthropic principles become crucial issues, and the connection of consciousness with the cosmos suggested by some leading quantum cosmologists is mind-blowing. Readers are brought to a boundary where the particular expertise of physicists is no longer a sure guide. They will find, instead, the facts and hints provided by quantum mechanics and the ability to speculate for themselves.
230 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2006
440 people are currently reading
3774 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 194 reviews
Read
January 11, 2009I've read a lot of physics books, always trying to get a better handle on these bizarre concepts. Each new book I read seems to take me closer to that "Okay, now I get it!" moment that I wish would come. According to the best scientists working in that field, though, there's really no way for our primate brains to accept some of the genuinely strange ideas. How can particles be in multiple places at once? How can they apparently move through time in different ways than we do? How can the laws of nature be different for these particles, and yet we, who are made of these particles, apparently function "normally" every day? What role does our consciousness play in all of this?
"The Quantum Enigma" is one of the best books I've read about these topics. It's great at leading the reader through some of those difficult ideas, and eventually allowing you to at least get a few steps closer to understanding. It addresses the deeply weird ideas inherent in the study of the nature of reality, but not in the way that some popular media has in the past like the film/book "What the Bleep Do We Know" which cops out by saying it's all magical and supernatural, and that the universe loves you and cares about you. I certainly don't get that impression about nature, and answering these big, intriguing questions with a simple, "It was made by a magical being who loves us!" doesn't work if you really care about knowing what's going on. "The Quantum Enigma" acknowledges that it's likely beyond our current ability to understand the true origins of everything in a way that works nicely with how we understand things in our daily lives, but it gave me a few good ways of looking at these things without leaving me feeling completely lost in them.
"The Quantum Enigma" is one of the best books I've read about these topics. It's great at leading the reader through some of those difficult ideas, and eventually allowing you to at least get a few steps closer to understanding. It addresses the deeply weird ideas inherent in the study of the nature of reality, but not in the way that some popular media has in the past like the film/book "What the Bleep Do We Know" which cops out by saying it's all magical and supernatural, and that the universe loves you and cares about you. I certainly don't get that impression about nature, and answering these big, intriguing questions with a simple, "It was made by a magical being who loves us!" doesn't work if you really care about knowing what's going on. "The Quantum Enigma" acknowledges that it's likely beyond our current ability to understand the true origins of everything in a way that works nicely with how we understand things in our daily lives, but it gave me a few good ways of looking at these things without leaving me feeling completely lost in them.
April 21, 2010
If you liked this book, did you like it because the subject matter was fascinating, or because the book was well written? I doubt it was the latter.
Ever see a cartoon where after a few scenes, you realize that the animation is just the same frames spliced over and over? This book is about 5 minutes worth of footage to make an hour cartoon. You can read the last two or three chapters and get the whole thing, and I can sum it up nicely here: physicists have trouble with the observer problem and get upset that they have to address something they don't (yet) have experiments for.
The authors display the same arrogance typical of physicists who ignore most of 2,500 years of philosophical history and act like the questions raised by quantum theory are Something New Under The Sun. They are not. Nor are they newly intellectually serious questions. Indeed, the angst of physicists who use derisive terms like "speculative" poses the question: are you an engineer or a calculator, or are you a scientist? A scientist seeks to answer questions about the universe. Sometimes those questions go beyond where you thought they might. Ask Newton. Ask Einstein.
The topic is fascinating, of course. But until enough philosophers get good at math and enough physicists learn how to read libraries of prose this field will be the preserve of the few people who have done both, like Stuart Kauffman. Physicists presenting a book that might be appropriate for general ed students sitting in a class they heard will, like, blow their mind, on drugs at places like UC Santa Cruz without adding anything from psychologists, biologists, philosophers, or mathematicians leaves this book way, way too thin. I can't even believe they include, as a legitimate idea, scientific reductionism. Chemistry can be explained by physics, but biology can't be. They should know that. They use the term "emergent" once or twice, but don't explain it, and don't explain why this is important for the quantum brain.
Let me add this: if you like this book, don't you think it might have been a lot better if they had collaborated with someone in another field on this?
Ever see a cartoon where after a few scenes, you realize that the animation is just the same frames spliced over and over? This book is about 5 minutes worth of footage to make an hour cartoon. You can read the last two or three chapters and get the whole thing, and I can sum it up nicely here: physicists have trouble with the observer problem and get upset that they have to address something they don't (yet) have experiments for.
The authors display the same arrogance typical of physicists who ignore most of 2,500 years of philosophical history and act like the questions raised by quantum theory are Something New Under The Sun. They are not. Nor are they newly intellectually serious questions. Indeed, the angst of physicists who use derisive terms like "speculative" poses the question: are you an engineer or a calculator, or are you a scientist? A scientist seeks to answer questions about the universe. Sometimes those questions go beyond where you thought they might. Ask Newton. Ask Einstein.
The topic is fascinating, of course. But until enough philosophers get good at math and enough physicists learn how to read libraries of prose this field will be the preserve of the few people who have done both, like Stuart Kauffman. Physicists presenting a book that might be appropriate for general ed students sitting in a class they heard will, like, blow their mind, on drugs at places like UC Santa Cruz without adding anything from psychologists, biologists, philosophers, or mathematicians leaves this book way, way too thin. I can't even believe they include, as a legitimate idea, scientific reductionism. Chemistry can be explained by physics, but biology can't be. They should know that. They use the term "emergent" once or twice, but don't explain it, and don't explain why this is important for the quantum brain.
Let me add this: if you like this book, don't you think it might have been a lot better if they had collaborated with someone in another field on this?
September 27, 2015
Since I have a bachelor's degree in physics, I'm reasonably familiar with quantum theory and the mystery it presents with regard to the influence of an observer. I've even written a few blogs on the subject you can find here: https://marcha2014.wordpress.com/cate.... I keep reading about quantum theory hoping for a deeper understanding but all I seem to discover is that no one really knows what's going on, even several decades after its first discovery. However, this well-written book did explain numerous other things that helped my understanding of the various interpretations and the differences between them.
This book does an excellent job of explaining the different interpretations, e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation, Schrodinger's cat, Einstein's view, Niels Bohr's opinion and various others, in a way that anyone interested in the subject can understand. What stands out the most is that even today the experts don't agree. In other words, they simply do not know. I continue to marvel that physicists can propose the existence of parallel universes, multiverses, and thirteen or more dimensions while dismissing and even disparaging anything that relates to consciousness.
Give me a break. Without consciousness they couldn't even consider the meaning of the physical world.
Thanks to reading this book I understand more thoroughly that physicists fear to tread outside their domain of the material world and to touch on anything that borders on parapsychology because it can result in professional suicide. How sad that science has become so specialized and compartmentalized that professional tunnel vision precludes solving some of life's greatest mysteries while those who think outside the box are ostracized by their peers and even looked upon as ignorant fools. Which side best fits that description only time will tell.
This book does an excellent job of explaining the different interpretations, e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation, Schrodinger's cat, Einstein's view, Niels Bohr's opinion and various others, in a way that anyone interested in the subject can understand. What stands out the most is that even today the experts don't agree. In other words, they simply do not know. I continue to marvel that physicists can propose the existence of parallel universes, multiverses, and thirteen or more dimensions while dismissing and even disparaging anything that relates to consciousness.
Give me a break. Without consciousness they couldn't even consider the meaning of the physical world.
Thanks to reading this book I understand more thoroughly that physicists fear to tread outside their domain of the material world and to touch on anything that borders on parapsychology because it can result in professional suicide. How sad that science has become so specialized and compartmentalized that professional tunnel vision precludes solving some of life's greatest mysteries while those who think outside the box are ostracized by their peers and even looked upon as ignorant fools. Which side best fits that description only time will tell.
April 4, 2025
ENGLISH: This book is a very clear description of quantum theory and its skeleton in the closet: does this theory entail an influence of conscience in reality?
The history of science described by the authors is standard, but flawed. Galileo was not the first to propose the scientific method, based on experiments. The authors of this book don't seem to know about all the work that was done in the fourteenth century by Oresme, Buridan, or the Calculators at Merton College. Their conclusion that Christianity and science are somewhat confronted is false.
A very interesting quote: How could you demonstrate the existence of free will? Perhaps all we have is our own feeling of free will and the claim of free will that others make. If no demonstration is at all possible, perhaps the existence of free will is meaningless. (Counter to that argument, though you can’t demonstrate your feeling of pain to someone else, you know it exists, and it’s certainly not meaningless.)
ESPAÑOL: Este libro proporciona una descripción muy clara de la teoría cuántica y de su esqueleto en el armario: ¿implica esta teoría que la conciencia influye en la realidad?
La historia de la ciencia que describen los autores está muy extendida, pero es defectuosa. Galileo no fue el primero en proponer el método científico, basado en experimentos. Los autores de este libro no parecen conocer el trabajo realizado en el siglo XIV por Oresme, Buridan o los Calculatores del Merton College. Su conclusión de que el cristianismo y la ciencia están enfrentados es falsa.
Una cita muy interesante: ¿Cómo se podría demostrar la existencia del libre albedrío? Quizá sólo tenemos la sensación de tener libre albedrío y la afirmación de otros, que también dicen tenerlo. Si no es posible demostrarlo, tal vez la existencia del libre albedrío no tenga sentido. (En contra de este argumento, aunque la sensación de dolor tampoco puede demostrarse, sabemos que existe, y ciertamente no carece de sentido).
The history of science described by the authors is standard, but flawed. Galileo was not the first to propose the scientific method, based on experiments. The authors of this book don't seem to know about all the work that was done in the fourteenth century by Oresme, Buridan, or the Calculators at Merton College. Their conclusion that Christianity and science are somewhat confronted is false.
A very interesting quote: How could you demonstrate the existence of free will? Perhaps all we have is our own feeling of free will and the claim of free will that others make. If no demonstration is at all possible, perhaps the existence of free will is meaningless. (Counter to that argument, though you can’t demonstrate your feeling of pain to someone else, you know it exists, and it’s certainly not meaningless.)
ESPAÑOL: Este libro proporciona una descripción muy clara de la teoría cuántica y de su esqueleto en el armario: ¿implica esta teoría que la conciencia influye en la realidad?
La historia de la ciencia que describen los autores está muy extendida, pero es defectuosa. Galileo no fue el primero en proponer el método científico, basado en experimentos. Los autores de este libro no parecen conocer el trabajo realizado en el siglo XIV por Oresme, Buridan o los Calculatores del Merton College. Su conclusión de que el cristianismo y la ciencia están enfrentados es falsa.
Una cita muy interesante: ¿Cómo se podría demostrar la existencia del libre albedrío? Quizá sólo tenemos la sensación de tener libre albedrío y la afirmación de otros, que también dicen tenerlo. Si no es posible demostrarlo, tal vez la existencia del libre albedrío no tenga sentido. (En contra de este argumento, aunque la sensación de dolor tampoco puede demostrarse, sabemos que existe, y ciertamente no carece de sentido).
August 19, 2024
I wasn't expecting to enjoy this book nearly as much as I did when I started reading it. The clearest history and exposition of quantum physics I have ever read. Additionally, it doesn't shy away from examining the various speculations about what it might mean. An interesting, level headed, and thought-provoking read.
March 3, 2012
I ordered this book after finishing the previous one I posted (From Science to God) because I wanted a more thorough explanation of the Quantum "Mystery." It seems that movies like "What the Bleep do We Know" have taken some of the more bizarre observations about quantum physics and allowed their imaginations to run wild with their claims, giving the less discerning public a less-than-accurate idea about what's really going on here.
This book, written by two widely-respected Physicists, presents the facts of quantum physics in a "Truth, Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth" manner. They attempt to separate the facts from the myths, while addressing the "Skeleton in the Closet" of science...Human Consciousness.
It's a heady read, and I'll have to go over it several more times to completely wrap my head around the material. If this topic interests you at all (and you are already familiar with the subject), this book is a MUST read. If it's all new to you, I recommend starting with something MUCH simpler (like the books I mentioned at the top)
This book, written by two widely-respected Physicists, presents the facts of quantum physics in a "Truth, Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth" manner. They attempt to separate the facts from the myths, while addressing the "Skeleton in the Closet" of science...Human Consciousness.
It's a heady read, and I'll have to go over it several more times to completely wrap my head around the material. If this topic interests you at all (and you are already familiar with the subject), this book is a MUST read. If it's all new to you, I recommend starting with something MUCH simpler (like the books I mentioned at the top)
December 23, 2019
Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness [2011] – ★★★★
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (Matthew 7: 7- 8, The King James Version of the Bible). “The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine” (Sir James Jeans).
Did you know that it has been experimentally proven in physics that the way you decide to look at something (your observation) changes that something or dictates/creates its locality/position? This happens on the atomic level and no one disputes that finding in the scientific community because this has been proved through the so-called “double-slit” experiment. However, virtually no one in the scientific community wants to consider what this finding means beyond its practical application. Quantum Enigma is a book that explores the divide that has emerged in science between Einstein’s theory of relativity, governing big objects in the universe and, the quantum theory that governs objects on the atomic level. The book provides a good historical overview of the knowledge so far on quantum mechanics, delving into the famous “double-slit” experiment and the Schrödinger’s Cat Paradox. In this sense, it is a great book for those completely unacquainted with the topic because it explains concepts in a very clear and unhurried way. The downside of this, of course, is that the book is needlessly repetitive and provides very few, if any, fresh ideas beyond the already established knowledge.
I initially assumed that Quantum Enigma would start straight with the workings of quantum mechanics, explaining its basic concepts (with the reference to the laws governing big objects), but the book starts with Ptolemy of Alexandria, and talks at length about the discoveries made by Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, underlining numerous times that quantum mechanics call into question the “separability” principle (a notion that every object is separate/different from any other) established previously in science and provides proof of universal “connectedness” (each object in the universe is connected and influenced by any other). The book then goes to explain electromagnetic forces and Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, before jumping into the science of quantum mechanics, talking about the early discoveries of Max Planck, Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger (the debate whether light is a wave or a particle). After that, there are detailed explanations of the various phenomena of quantum mechanics, including the (somewhat dull) Copenhagen interpretation that says that “only the observed properties of microscopic objects exist” [2011: 130], and the talk about how the workings of quantum mechanics can be seen in real life and in technology. Then, the Schrödinger’s Cat Experiment is explained in full and the so-called law of entanglement is put forward (objects can influence each other without any direct physical force existing between them, provided these objects made their initial contact at some point).
The last parts of the book are all about more mystical explanations of the quantum mechanics’ enigma, such as the explanation put forward by John Stewart Bell, and the implications of this for the concept of consciousness. The quantum enigma resides in the fact that “the observed cannot (seem to) be separated from the observer”, that “the physical reality of an object depends on how you choose to look at it” [2011: 72], and that a single atom may be found in two places at once. These are very difficult concepts to grasp for an ordinary human being, but the double-slit experiment proved that they are scientifically correct statements.
In brief, the double-slit experiment tells that if you direct one light electron into two opening slits in the wall that are positioned in parallel to each other, and start observing that electron of light, it would behave as a single particle, entering either of the two respective slits, and hitting the wall behind the slits, showing just one mark on the wall. However, if you direct that one particle into two opening slits without observing it at any point, it would behave as though it is a wave – passing somehow through two slits at the same time, creating an interference pattern on the wall behind the two slits. So, are electrons of light waves or single particles? The scientific answer is that they are what you want them to be. Your decision to show them as either participles or waves determines whether they would behave as such. If you choose to use two slits and decide to observe how a single electron can create an interference pattern by passing through two slits at the same time, the electron would immediate act as though it is single particle as though it is aware you are watching it. It is as though it does not want you to see how it passes through two slits at the same time. The conclusion is that the external reality at the atomic level is all about you and your observation. You create the reality for that electron and its place. That is what experimental physics currently says. “The reality of the physical world depends somehow on our observation of it” [2011: 54] and “quantum theory… denies the existence of a physically real world independent of its observation” [2011: 7].
Thus, the last chapters of Quantum Enigma talk about how this phenomenon may be explained, and such explanations are given as the parallel universes or the Many Worlds Theory and the idea that our free will may not be “free” at all, but predetermined in advance (otherwise, how would electrons have known in advance what experiment we would choose to do?). It seems that the external reality is created at the atomic level based on our previous beliefs and perceptions – based on our observation. We still do not know much about consciousness and how it arises in the brain, and some scientists believe that there are parallels between the quantum enigma and the mystery of consciousness. This parallel may have something to do with our perception, free will and observation.
The negative aspect of the book is that there are not many theories in the book that speculate about the quantum enigma, trying to provide a sound explanation of it, and there are none coming from the authors themselves. The book reads like a history of quantum mechanics for beginners and there is much needless background information. Rosenblum and Kuttner also make a weird choice of repeating the quantum mechanics’ enigma in an imaginary school setting with one teacher explaining the theory again in the book in a rather strange and allegorical way.
Quantum Enigma will be a good book for those who have very little knowledge on the subject and who are curious about the mysteries of quantum mechanisms. The book is thought-provoking as it suggests that our scientific knowledge is incomplete and there is still much we do not know about the universe, its workings, as well as about our own perception of reality. In this respect, the book gives much food for thought, and many scientists nowadays are also trying to explain the quantum mechanism’s enigma by seeking answers elsewhere – beyond the realms of physics and science. Another interesting thought is that science seems to be finally catching up with what ancient wisdom (such as Buddhism) has been telling us all along and, perhaps, we are simply limited by our brain functions and this stops us from understanding fully the universe’s working and the nature of reality (including the concept that an object can be in two places at once and its very creation and position may come from within ourselves).
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (Matthew 7: 7- 8, The King James Version of the Bible). “The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine” (Sir James Jeans).
Did you know that it has been experimentally proven in physics that the way you decide to look at something (your observation) changes that something or dictates/creates its locality/position? This happens on the atomic level and no one disputes that finding in the scientific community because this has been proved through the so-called “double-slit” experiment. However, virtually no one in the scientific community wants to consider what this finding means beyond its practical application. Quantum Enigma is a book that explores the divide that has emerged in science between Einstein’s theory of relativity, governing big objects in the universe and, the quantum theory that governs objects on the atomic level. The book provides a good historical overview of the knowledge so far on quantum mechanics, delving into the famous “double-slit” experiment and the Schrödinger’s Cat Paradox. In this sense, it is a great book for those completely unacquainted with the topic because it explains concepts in a very clear and unhurried way. The downside of this, of course, is that the book is needlessly repetitive and provides very few, if any, fresh ideas beyond the already established knowledge.
I initially assumed that Quantum Enigma would start straight with the workings of quantum mechanics, explaining its basic concepts (with the reference to the laws governing big objects), but the book starts with Ptolemy of Alexandria, and talks at length about the discoveries made by Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, underlining numerous times that quantum mechanics call into question the “separability” principle (a notion that every object is separate/different from any other) established previously in science and provides proof of universal “connectedness” (each object in the universe is connected and influenced by any other). The book then goes to explain electromagnetic forces and Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, before jumping into the science of quantum mechanics, talking about the early discoveries of Max Planck, Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger (the debate whether light is a wave or a particle). After that, there are detailed explanations of the various phenomena of quantum mechanics, including the (somewhat dull) Copenhagen interpretation that says that “only the observed properties of microscopic objects exist” [2011: 130], and the talk about how the workings of quantum mechanics can be seen in real life and in technology. Then, the Schrödinger’s Cat Experiment is explained in full and the so-called law of entanglement is put forward (objects can influence each other without any direct physical force existing between them, provided these objects made their initial contact at some point).
The last parts of the book are all about more mystical explanations of the quantum mechanics’ enigma, such as the explanation put forward by John Stewart Bell, and the implications of this for the concept of consciousness. The quantum enigma resides in the fact that “the observed cannot (seem to) be separated from the observer”, that “the physical reality of an object depends on how you choose to look at it” [2011: 72], and that a single atom may be found in two places at once. These are very difficult concepts to grasp for an ordinary human being, but the double-slit experiment proved that they are scientifically correct statements.
In brief, the double-slit experiment tells that if you direct one light electron into two opening slits in the wall that are positioned in parallel to each other, and start observing that electron of light, it would behave as a single particle, entering either of the two respective slits, and hitting the wall behind the slits, showing just one mark on the wall. However, if you direct that one particle into two opening slits without observing it at any point, it would behave as though it is a wave – passing somehow through two slits at the same time, creating an interference pattern on the wall behind the two slits. So, are electrons of light waves or single particles? The scientific answer is that they are what you want them to be. Your decision to show them as either participles or waves determines whether they would behave as such. If you choose to use two slits and decide to observe how a single electron can create an interference pattern by passing through two slits at the same time, the electron would immediate act as though it is single particle as though it is aware you are watching it. It is as though it does not want you to see how it passes through two slits at the same time. The conclusion is that the external reality at the atomic level is all about you and your observation. You create the reality for that electron and its place. That is what experimental physics currently says. “The reality of the physical world depends somehow on our observation of it” [2011: 54] and “quantum theory… denies the existence of a physically real world independent of its observation” [2011: 7].
Thus, the last chapters of Quantum Enigma talk about how this phenomenon may be explained, and such explanations are given as the parallel universes or the Many Worlds Theory and the idea that our free will may not be “free” at all, but predetermined in advance (otherwise, how would electrons have known in advance what experiment we would choose to do?). It seems that the external reality is created at the atomic level based on our previous beliefs and perceptions – based on our observation. We still do not know much about consciousness and how it arises in the brain, and some scientists believe that there are parallels between the quantum enigma and the mystery of consciousness. This parallel may have something to do with our perception, free will and observation.
The negative aspect of the book is that there are not many theories in the book that speculate about the quantum enigma, trying to provide a sound explanation of it, and there are none coming from the authors themselves. The book reads like a history of quantum mechanics for beginners and there is much needless background information. Rosenblum and Kuttner also make a weird choice of repeating the quantum mechanics’ enigma in an imaginary school setting with one teacher explaining the theory again in the book in a rather strange and allegorical way.
Quantum Enigma will be a good book for those who have very little knowledge on the subject and who are curious about the mysteries of quantum mechanisms. The book is thought-provoking as it suggests that our scientific knowledge is incomplete and there is still much we do not know about the universe, its workings, as well as about our own perception of reality. In this respect, the book gives much food for thought, and many scientists nowadays are also trying to explain the quantum mechanism’s enigma by seeking answers elsewhere – beyond the realms of physics and science. Another interesting thought is that science seems to be finally catching up with what ancient wisdom (such as Buddhism) has been telling us all along and, perhaps, we are simply limited by our brain functions and this stops us from understanding fully the universe’s working and the nature of reality (including the concept that an object can be in two places at once and its very creation and position may come from within ourselves).
April 30, 2016
I've read this book several times -- first edition and second. It's not really hard to understand at all. The authors have a clear and to-the-point writing style--unusually entertaining for a non-fiction idea-oriented book of this sort. It is hard to accept. What it says is so disturbing to the prevailing world-view that I'm sure many people just shut it out by saying, "Oh this is too hard to understand." That means they've probably understood it. Other readers may say, "This is all old-hat. Nothing new here -- it's boring." That's probably someone who doesn't understand what the book is saying.
The quantum experiments are about as simple in principle as it's possible to be -- although some of them may require some awfully hi-tech equipment to conduct. So you don't need much if any math to understand this book. It's more about the implications of the experiments. What kind of world is this? Is it real? What does "real" mean? Do things have any separate existence? How can things that have no known physical connection still be connected -- even at vast distances -- in some weird mysterious way? How can things exist in different -- and even opposing -- states depending on how they are observed? How can the fact of being observed affect the values of the properties being measured?
I won't promise that you will find the answers to all these questions in this book. But I think you may learn more about what the questions are and how to ask them -- perhaps better than I have. Knowing how to ask a question is, I believe, a large part of finding the answer.
The quantum experiments are about as simple in principle as it's possible to be -- although some of them may require some awfully hi-tech equipment to conduct. So you don't need much if any math to understand this book. It's more about the implications of the experiments. What kind of world is this? Is it real? What does "real" mean? Do things have any separate existence? How can things that have no known physical connection still be connected -- even at vast distances -- in some weird mysterious way? How can things exist in different -- and even opposing -- states depending on how they are observed? How can the fact of being observed affect the values of the properties being measured?
I won't promise that you will find the answers to all these questions in this book. But I think you may learn more about what the questions are and how to ask them -- perhaps better than I have. Knowing how to ask a question is, I believe, a large part of finding the answer.
May 7, 2019
I found this book to be real food for thought. Rosenblum points out that Quantum probability tells us not the probability of the state of a system but rather where an observer will measure it to be. The system wasn't in that state until it was observed to be there. Quantum cosmologist John Wheeler puts it concisely: "No microscopic property is a property until it is an observed property." Quantum mechanics thus requires a conscious observer to produce physical properties.
He next deals with the very strange concept of separability. Physicists have now demonstrated conclusively that once quantum states interact with each other they remain forever linked in such a way that the state of one such state is immediately influenced by a change in state of the other system even when separated from it by long distances, thus apparently violating our belief that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. As a consequence any quantum states that have ever interacted are no longer separable and the universe is highly linked with many other parts of the universe. Physicists do not really understand this instantaneous action-at-a-distance, but it is predicted by Quantum Mechanics and has been verified experimentally.
He then turns to modern thinking about consciousness. Is consciousness more than the product of chemical reactions in the body? He states that the two great mysteries are the mystery of the existence of the world "out there" and the mystery of consciousness "in here". He claims that quantum mechanics appears to connect the two.
He then takes this mystery to the beginning of time, at the Big Bang. If a microscopic property requires a conscious observer to produce physical properties, what created the first matter? One explanation could be a consciousness outside of the universe--God. Another is that spacetime is closed back on itself and the "future" consciousness of people yet to be created were the consciousnesses that caused the original first matter to exist through the mechanism of separability.
I find it fascinating that from a scientific viewpoint Rosenblum reaches the conclusion that some consciousness was necessary to create the universe.
He next deals with the very strange concept of separability. Physicists have now demonstrated conclusively that once quantum states interact with each other they remain forever linked in such a way that the state of one such state is immediately influenced by a change in state of the other system even when separated from it by long distances, thus apparently violating our belief that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. As a consequence any quantum states that have ever interacted are no longer separable and the universe is highly linked with many other parts of the universe. Physicists do not really understand this instantaneous action-at-a-distance, but it is predicted by Quantum Mechanics and has been verified experimentally.
He then turns to modern thinking about consciousness. Is consciousness more than the product of chemical reactions in the body? He states that the two great mysteries are the mystery of the existence of the world "out there" and the mystery of consciousness "in here". He claims that quantum mechanics appears to connect the two.
He then takes this mystery to the beginning of time, at the Big Bang. If a microscopic property requires a conscious observer to produce physical properties, what created the first matter? One explanation could be a consciousness outside of the universe--God. Another is that spacetime is closed back on itself and the "future" consciousness of people yet to be created were the consciousnesses that caused the original first matter to exist through the mechanism of separability.
I find it fascinating that from a scientific viewpoint Rosenblum reaches the conclusion that some consciousness was necessary to create the universe.
February 16, 2022
Un libro extremadamente interesante, muy aconsejable para todo aquel que quiera conocer de manera no muy complicada el fascinante mundo de la mecánica cuántica. Los autores, dos físicos norteamericanos, tratan el tema con tanto rigor como amenidad, introduciendo al lector en los misterios del mundo subatómico con la intención de trasladarle las sorprendentes implicaciones que para nuestra realidad tiene el concepto cuántico, un "secreto de familia" que la Interpretación de Copenhague, defensora del pragmatismo a ultranza, obliga a dar de lado en pro de la investigación y el utilitarismo.
La mecánica cuántica funciona, y eso es lo que cuenta. El problema es que parece demostrar cosas que creemos absurdas, como por ejemplo que el observador influye en la creación de un proceso (de alguna forma, lo crea al observarlo), lo cual podría conducir a la peligrosa conclusión de que es la conciencia la que da origen a la realidad. Rosenblum y Kuttner ponen todos los datos al alcance del lector y hacen desfilar en orden cronológico a todos los eminentes científicos que investigaron la teoría cuántica, aquellos que la fueron configurando hasta darle su actual apariencia: Planck, Einstein, Bohr, De Broglie, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Bell...
Conceptos como el del entrelazamiento cuántico, que sugiere que dos partículas pueden estar conectadas independientemente de la distancia que haya entre ellas, o la superposición cuántica, que asegura que una partícula puede estar en dos estados a la vez hasta que se la observa (marcando el observador de ese modo la realidad del estado, antecedentes temporales incluidos), son acompañados con clarificadores ejemplos, de tal modo que -y quizás sea este el único pero del libro- cuando llegan los capítulos finales dedicados a la conciencia, en los cuales las implicaciones deberían estallar como una bomba retardada, la sorpresa lo es menos. El último capítulo, en el que se aplica todo lo tratado al entorno cósmico, contiene sentido de la maravilla a espuertas, en dosis altamente peligrosas por su pureza.
La mecánica cuántica funciona, y eso es lo que cuenta. El problema es que parece demostrar cosas que creemos absurdas, como por ejemplo que el observador influye en la creación de un proceso (de alguna forma, lo crea al observarlo), lo cual podría conducir a la peligrosa conclusión de que es la conciencia la que da origen a la realidad. Rosenblum y Kuttner ponen todos los datos al alcance del lector y hacen desfilar en orden cronológico a todos los eminentes científicos que investigaron la teoría cuántica, aquellos que la fueron configurando hasta darle su actual apariencia: Planck, Einstein, Bohr, De Broglie, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Bell...
Conceptos como el del entrelazamiento cuántico, que sugiere que dos partículas pueden estar conectadas independientemente de la distancia que haya entre ellas, o la superposición cuántica, que asegura que una partícula puede estar en dos estados a la vez hasta que se la observa (marcando el observador de ese modo la realidad del estado, antecedentes temporales incluidos), son acompañados con clarificadores ejemplos, de tal modo que -y quizás sea este el único pero del libro- cuando llegan los capítulos finales dedicados a la conciencia, en los cuales las implicaciones deberían estallar como una bomba retardada, la sorpresa lo es menos. El último capítulo, en el que se aplica todo lo tratado al entorno cósmico, contiene sentido de la maravilla a espuertas, en dosis altamente peligrosas por su pureza.
February 19, 2017
This book is full of misinterpretation. The authors clearly have a romanticized view of physics and certainly don't understand it. The good marks come from people who either really really want to believe that physics is weird or people who don't know what's it about.
To give an example: the authors want to present entanglement as a quantum weirdness and arrange a mental experiment where they put people in huts with closed doors. Through the way they present the experiment, they suggest that the results of quantum measurements are a conspiracy in which the universe or the particles *know* what the measurement will ask. That's an absolutely stupid interpretation and has no connection to reality. Moreover, setting up a quantum experiment with people changes the premise so much that it can't be called quantum mechanics.
This book isn't science. Actually if you look at some of the previous reviews, you'll see that the authors are interested in parapsychology. Whomever wants a good presentation of modern physics should try Richard Feynman, Leonard Susskind, or Brian Greene. Even Feynman likes to have a romanticized view on quantum mechanics but at least he presents the main ideas in the correct way.
To give an example: the authors want to present entanglement as a quantum weirdness and arrange a mental experiment where they put people in huts with closed doors. Through the way they present the experiment, they suggest that the results of quantum measurements are a conspiracy in which the universe or the particles *know* what the measurement will ask. That's an absolutely stupid interpretation and has no connection to reality. Moreover, setting up a quantum experiment with people changes the premise so much that it can't be called quantum mechanics.
This book isn't science. Actually if you look at some of the previous reviews, you'll see that the authors are interested in parapsychology. Whomever wants a good presentation of modern physics should try Richard Feynman, Leonard Susskind, or Brian Greene. Even Feynman likes to have a romanticized view on quantum mechanics but at least he presents the main ideas in the correct way.
January 1, 2009
The best nonfiction book I’ve read in awhile. This book is a fascinating and an easy-to-visualize introduction to concepts that fuel current scientific debate around the implications of quantum theory and its reliance on a conscious observer.
Written by two UC Santa Cruz physics professors, short chapters include humorous analogies and non-technical descriptions of Newtonian physics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics. The quantum enigma emerges from experimental evidence that shows what scientists observe at the quantum level depends on what they “decide” to evaluate. Contrary to the tenets of the scientific method, when it comes to the world of subatomic matter, there is no such thing as an “objective” observer. In fact, consciousness might actually create a particular reality by collapsing the wave function of potential outcomes into one physical reality...that is, if reality even exists at all.
The authors never officially take sides with competing interpretations of the quantum enigma, but their work will undoubtedly fuel much discussion about the role of consciousness in scientific observation.
Written by two UC Santa Cruz physics professors, short chapters include humorous analogies and non-technical descriptions of Newtonian physics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics. The quantum enigma emerges from experimental evidence that shows what scientists observe at the quantum level depends on what they “decide” to evaluate. Contrary to the tenets of the scientific method, when it comes to the world of subatomic matter, there is no such thing as an “objective” observer. In fact, consciousness might actually create a particular reality by collapsing the wave function of potential outcomes into one physical reality...that is, if reality even exists at all.
The authors never officially take sides with competing interpretations of the quantum enigma, but their work will undoubtedly fuel much discussion about the role of consciousness in scientific observation.
November 3, 2009
I was taught by these two authors of this book at UCSC and got to have several conversations with them regarding how Quantum Mechanics effects our current theories of Parapsychology. Dr. Fred Kittener is an absolutely stubborn old clod and fool, but Dr. Bruce Rosenblum is a gem of a human with an open mind and good nature about him. Dr. Rosenblum is also cited briefly in "Unbelievable: The Duke Parapsychology Lab"
December 18, 2010
Generally a good and easy read but some concepts are over-explained and some (I guess the more complicated ones) are not explained well or left unexplained. Only in the end do they get to concsiousness and their points are not as good as I expected.
February 28, 2019
Similar in scope of coverage to another layman text within the field of quantum physics, from the perspective of the "foundations", Anton Zeilinger's "Dance of the Photons", 3/4ths of this book is exposition broadly on two things:
1. Interference phenomena
2. Bell's Inequality
The difference between the two texts is the pedagogical approach. Whereas Zeilinger's book explained both of these phenomena within the context of the "fable" or story of two fictitious underclassmen physics students, "Alice" and "Bob", running the interference experiment for the first time, and struggling to interpret what they're observing, Rosenblum and Kuttner go the more direct route. Though, they too leverage one really well-crafted, well-placed, "fable"/story at the beginning of the book that likens the mystery of entanglement with a story of an anthropologist, tribe, their shaman, and that claims at recreating a "scientific miracle" (you'll have to read this for yourself!).
Beside this bit of creative storytelling in the beginning, the rest of of the text follows a more literally conceptual exposition on the subject matter. Despite the lack of any mathematics, the treatment retains all the logic one would find in a textbook, perhaps a bit more drawn out. Having started my own amateur journey of self-learning in this subject-matter, I can attest directly that books like this definitely benefit students studying this formally with the linear algebra/diff-eq retained as well.
Coming back briefly to the story of the tribe and huts, I just have to emphasize it's really well-done, and definitely recreates the surprise (and joy) of looking at something seemingly mundane, but then coming to an understanding suddenly that something extraordinary is happening, and I think it's very important a formal student of this subject matter should be forced to an experience. I can imagine that someone approaching this subject purely from the mathematical angle, may end up gaining the mechanical skills of reading bra-ket notation, solving the hamiltonian, or correctly analyzing various wave-in-box scenarios, but they miss a lot if they miss the interpretation, and are constantly scrambling to pass exams or labs.
Although, I really think Zeilinger's book is first-rate as exposition for both these phenomena, Rosenblum and Kuttner beat him out slightly in terms as a tight-and-compact conceptual exposition. From the start with the anthropologist realizing the tribesmen are somehow "reading his mind" in the story, to later in the book when the author explains the motivation/concept behind Bell's experiment to disprove the hidden-variables theory, by illustrating the mental-model that spin and other properties are "real", illustrating it as a "stick" protruding from the particle in one's mind, and reasoning about how this "real" property will interact with polarization to distribute the particles along one path or another in an experiment, then showing how this hypothesis totally fails to explain reality when the predicted counts and actual counts breaks Bell's inequality (based on some simple logic about how those sticks will be impacted by equal magnitude but opposite rotations of the apparatus). Although the author doesn't state it explicitly, he likens the Bell experiments to a kind of reductio-ad absurdem, whereby the physicist is attempting to show how all the alternative cases all fail, leaving only the canonical interpretation from QM left. Brilliant.
Hands-down the best explanation of Bell's phenomena and the debate on physical realism, because of how clean it was and how easily understandable it is to the common reader. Despite these accolades, the book does suffer from one major flaw, it is supposedly a text on consciousness and it's potential part with respect to the measurement problem in QM, yet this topic occupies less than a quarter of the text. Sort of a bummer, but because the rest of the text is so good, this can be overlooked. Recommended
1. Interference phenomena
2. Bell's Inequality
The difference between the two texts is the pedagogical approach. Whereas Zeilinger's book explained both of these phenomena within the context of the "fable" or story of two fictitious underclassmen physics students, "Alice" and "Bob", running the interference experiment for the first time, and struggling to interpret what they're observing, Rosenblum and Kuttner go the more direct route. Though, they too leverage one really well-crafted, well-placed, "fable"/story at the beginning of the book that likens the mystery of entanglement with a story of an anthropologist, tribe, their shaman, and that claims at recreating a "scientific miracle" (you'll have to read this for yourself!).
Beside this bit of creative storytelling in the beginning, the rest of of the text follows a more literally conceptual exposition on the subject matter. Despite the lack of any mathematics, the treatment retains all the logic one would find in a textbook, perhaps a bit more drawn out. Having started my own amateur journey of self-learning in this subject-matter, I can attest directly that books like this definitely benefit students studying this formally with the linear algebra/diff-eq retained as well.
Coming back briefly to the story of the tribe and huts, I just have to emphasize it's really well-done, and definitely recreates the surprise (and joy) of looking at something seemingly mundane, but then coming to an understanding suddenly that something extraordinary is happening, and I think it's very important a formal student of this subject matter should be forced to an experience. I can imagine that someone approaching this subject purely from the mathematical angle, may end up gaining the mechanical skills of reading bra-ket notation, solving the hamiltonian, or correctly analyzing various wave-in-box scenarios, but they miss a lot if they miss the interpretation, and are constantly scrambling to pass exams or labs.
Although, I really think Zeilinger's book is first-rate as exposition for both these phenomena, Rosenblum and Kuttner beat him out slightly in terms as a tight-and-compact conceptual exposition. From the start with the anthropologist realizing the tribesmen are somehow "reading his mind" in the story, to later in the book when the author explains the motivation/concept behind Bell's experiment to disprove the hidden-variables theory, by illustrating the mental-model that spin and other properties are "real", illustrating it as a "stick" protruding from the particle in one's mind, and reasoning about how this "real" property will interact with polarization to distribute the particles along one path or another in an experiment, then showing how this hypothesis totally fails to explain reality when the predicted counts and actual counts breaks Bell's inequality (based on some simple logic about how those sticks will be impacted by equal magnitude but opposite rotations of the apparatus). Although the author doesn't state it explicitly, he likens the Bell experiments to a kind of reductio-ad absurdem, whereby the physicist is attempting to show how all the alternative cases all fail, leaving only the canonical interpretation from QM left. Brilliant.
Hands-down the best explanation of Bell's phenomena and the debate on physical realism, because of how clean it was and how easily understandable it is to the common reader. Despite these accolades, the book does suffer from one major flaw, it is supposedly a text on consciousness and it's potential part with respect to the measurement problem in QM, yet this topic occupies less than a quarter of the text. Sort of a bummer, but because the rest of the text is so good, this can be overlooked. Recommended
August 19, 2011
This book deals with quantum enigma and consciousness, the fact that at microscopic (quantum) scales weird things happen that our conscious mind cannot comprehend.
The authors take their time to explain the quantum enigma (and I must admit they do this well), the fact that observation creates reality, and the reality (or experimental outcome) depends on the observation, contrary to our intuition originated from classical Physics that observation alone cannot affect reality.
It is the final chapters when I started to feel uneasy about this book. I found subtle but nevertheless annoying sense of supernatural or weirdness being over emphasised to the extent of being mystical, and Physics being sidetracked.
To set the record straight, I don't find consciousness mystical, philosophical or weird, to me it is as biological as my bones or blood. The fact that we cannot comprehend quantum enigma today does not necessarily mean that we are supposed to comprehend it despite our biological limitations, unless we find new ways of mapping physical reality into our limited view.
The authors take their time to explain the quantum enigma (and I must admit they do this well), the fact that observation creates reality, and the reality (or experimental outcome) depends on the observation, contrary to our intuition originated from classical Physics that observation alone cannot affect reality.
It is the final chapters when I started to feel uneasy about this book. I found subtle but nevertheless annoying sense of supernatural or weirdness being over emphasised to the extent of being mystical, and Physics being sidetracked.
To set the record straight, I don't find consciousness mystical, philosophical or weird, to me it is as biological as my bones or blood. The fact that we cannot comprehend quantum enigma today does not necessarily mean that we are supposed to comprehend it despite our biological limitations, unless we find new ways of mapping physical reality into our limited view.
January 12, 2020
Very very interesting read! It certainly raises one of the most profound questions I've ever read in Physics! I think this book does a great job at explaining the physics in an comprehensive way! My hope is that this sparks a sort of revolution in thinking, as the Renaissance was in a way sparked by the work of Newton and Galilei. Recommended!
Currently reading
July 18, 2007I am still reading this book.... my hope is that this book bridges the gap between physics (observable world) and spiritual underpinnings as expounded by Advaita Vedanta (Hindu philosophy) for the totally scientifically inclined.
September 16, 2008
This is one of the most clear-headed, accessible, and straight-forward accounts of Quantum Mechanics and the 'measurement problem' I've read. Based upon their course at Santa Cruz for liberal arts students, they manage to convey the implications of Quantum Mechanics with nary an equation. Good job!
September 20, 2009
Very informative. excellent introduction to quantum physics. At times I was falling asleep, but it keeps it entertaining enough. I feel smarter for having read it. Search youtube for "quantum double slit experiment" for a good animation explaining interference patterns.
April 14, 2014
Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner are adventurous academic physicists, and they here give us a handy summary of their understanding of the consciousness issue in quantum physics. This book is plainly written and highly accessible for non-physicists, and it is flat-out fun to read.
April 15, 2020
This is one of the most fascinating books I've ever read. (I'd like to note that is in significant part due to the TOPIC and not simply the book.) Also likely because (not coming from a physics or maths background), I knew almost no specifics about quantum going into it beyond the vague idea most people have when mentioned: the idea of something being in 2 places at once.
However, I'd have to praise the way it was written too. The authors take a complex topic and present it to the lay person, in my opinon, very effectively through analogies, dialogues, occasional sketches and thought-experiments. It is repetitive so, when introducing an idea the necessary background for you to understand what follows is restated. I suppose, for those who are already acquainted with quantum, this could be annoying but I appreciated it given that it was read in multiple sittings.
It took a long time (relative to length) to work through and gain a thorough understanding but was worth it. It is very systematic. To start, it lays down the foundations that resulted in the development of quantum theory and later it's most accepted interpretation before contrasting this with other interpretations. It then presents the enigma (s): namely 'the measurement problem', that quantum theory seems unable to ignore i.e. the requirement of an observer. It begins to introduce the idea of a conscious observer and the speculative implications for theories of consciousness. It clearly signposts these speculations and evidence for and against such hypotheses. Helpfully, there is also a 'Suggested Reading' list at the end.
The majority of the book talks about what quantum theory actually is and what the problems with it are. The implications and more outlandish possible explainations of these problems feature only for a short time at the end. This was actually better for me as I just wanted a sound appreciation of the fundamentals to start.
I have sat and just thought very often during the course of reading this book- and what a delight it has been. Would love to discuss specifics (lots of q's!) and have got a couple of related books lined up to explore the topic further.
4.8 - more detail on other interpretations would have been useful but granted might have made it longer an introductory text than necessary.
However, I'd have to praise the way it was written too. The authors take a complex topic and present it to the lay person, in my opinon, very effectively through analogies, dialogues, occasional sketches and thought-experiments. It is repetitive so, when introducing an idea the necessary background for you to understand what follows is restated. I suppose, for those who are already acquainted with quantum, this could be annoying but I appreciated it given that it was read in multiple sittings.
It took a long time (relative to length) to work through and gain a thorough understanding but was worth it. It is very systematic. To start, it lays down the foundations that resulted in the development of quantum theory and later it's most accepted interpretation before contrasting this with other interpretations. It then presents the enigma (s): namely 'the measurement problem', that quantum theory seems unable to ignore i.e. the requirement of an observer. It begins to introduce the idea of a conscious observer and the speculative implications for theories of consciousness. It clearly signposts these speculations and evidence for and against such hypotheses. Helpfully, there is also a 'Suggested Reading' list at the end.
The majority of the book talks about what quantum theory actually is and what the problems with it are. The implications and more outlandish possible explainations of these problems feature only for a short time at the end. This was actually better for me as I just wanted a sound appreciation of the fundamentals to start.
I have sat and just thought very often during the course of reading this book- and what a delight it has been. Would love to discuss specifics (lots of q's!) and have got a couple of related books lined up to explore the topic further.
4.8 - more detail on other interpretations would have been useful but granted might have made it longer an introductory text than necessary.
July 15, 2024
I keep reading these books on quantum physics hoping to try to grasp some understanding of it. At seventy-seven years old I may have to accept that it's not going to happen. This has some of the most understandable explanations of any book I've read on the subject but it's still, simply, beyond my ability. The authors take the reader through the history of the subject and slowly begin explaining each of the bizarre aspects of it. They explain that classical physics explains the world but not the details and that quantum physics explains the details, it just doesn't seem to be the same world we live in. The main point that they are making in the book is that a sub-atomic particle has a probability of existing in two or more places at one time, which is known as the wavefunction, but the wavefunction only becomes "real" if it's observed. This means that it doesn't exist unless it's observed by an observer. But if this is true then does this mean that nothing actually exists because everything is made from atoms and would only become real if its observed. Much of what they are explaining seems to verge on mysticism, but the authors assure us that it's not. Eventually, they begin including consciousness into their explanation, but I have to admit that much of this went over my head so I'm not going to try to sum it up. It's a fascinating subject that I wish I had the ability to understand but I don't.
April 9, 2022
– This book does everything it sets out to do; however, three out of five because it is very dry, and the authors miss every opportunity to insert a little humor.
I was pretty nervous about starting this book thinking that the science would be way beyond me, so I was pleasantly surprised to find that only two chapters mostly went over my head and the majority of the science as explained requires the basic knowledge of physics taught in high school. Generally, I didn’t get lost in the reading, but I did have to stay focused and think. It’s definitely not fluff.
I’m going to try to keep this not-too-long, but I’m going to summarize my thinking a bit in this review mostly to clarify my thinking.
First, the enigma starts with the fact that some things, example: photons, are both particles and waves, the discovery of which was controversial. From that the question arises that what determines whether a photon is a wave or a particle besides our own measurement of it? The simple answer is observation.
The Quantum Enigma can be simplified to the idea that observation creates reality. Super small items like photons hold a super-position until they are observed, meaning that they hold all possible positions (realities) with a probability of reality until observation sets one probability to 100% and the other to zero. (If I got this wrong, please don’t tell me.) Schrodinger's Cat is the most well known example of this theory.
Now, the idea that items simply don’t exist until they are observed doesn’t sit well with physicists, but they also don’t want to dive into philosophical or religious realms. The concept of consciousness ventures into philosophy, so the enigma is generally ignored by physicists because the math behind quantum physics, which includes the enigma, has been 100% accurate for predictions and modeling since the 1950s.
Side note: the book does cover a few examples of the practical applications stemming from the math of the quantum enigma: ultra-precise clocks, lasers, MRI machines, LEDs, to name a few.
The book details several attempts by physicists to disprove the observation dilemma because the concept that there is no reality without observation seems absurd. One of those focused on what Einstein called “spooky interactions.” The experiment took twin photons, which maintain the same state of being, and observed and affected one independently of its twin. The twin was not observed during the interaction. Upon observation the twin always ended in the same state as the twin despite the fact that it had been unobserved or interacted with. This doesn’t disprove the observation concept for reality but does create more questions.
Clearly, tons of science fiction has been born of thinking about the enigma. One big one right now is the concept of the multiverse: All possibilities are real therefore we have infinite realities.
Throughout the book, the authors discuss what constitutes observation, and one defense of the theory is that all large objects (non-microscopic) are always observed, so our reality feels real, not in flux, because consciousness involves observation of things we know about but can’t see. Also, trees falling in a wood make noise because we know they make noise… maybe.
Toward the end of the book, the authors begin the discussion of consciousness. It was pretty difficult for me to really follow because it really stays at the surface; however, it was interesting to learn that 95% of the universe is dark matter, about 75% energy and 20% matter. We have very little understanding of dark matter, but it could contain a consciousness. The other problem is that we also don’t really understand consciousness. Robots with AI for observing any experiment that reveals the quantum enigma becomes part of the experiment, meaning that until observed by someone undeniably conscious the measurements made by that robot are part of a superposition.
The authors include a couple of quotes in the conclusion that seem relevant in the attempted understanding of the enigma: “Why does the universe go through all the bother of existing.” Steven Hawking. And, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in our philosophy.” from Hamlet.
I was pretty nervous about starting this book thinking that the science would be way beyond me, so I was pleasantly surprised to find that only two chapters mostly went over my head and the majority of the science as explained requires the basic knowledge of physics taught in high school. Generally, I didn’t get lost in the reading, but I did have to stay focused and think. It’s definitely not fluff.
I’m going to try to keep this not-too-long, but I’m going to summarize my thinking a bit in this review mostly to clarify my thinking.
First, the enigma starts with the fact that some things, example: photons, are both particles and waves, the discovery of which was controversial. From that the question arises that what determines whether a photon is a wave or a particle besides our own measurement of it? The simple answer is observation.
The Quantum Enigma can be simplified to the idea that observation creates reality. Super small items like photons hold a super-position until they are observed, meaning that they hold all possible positions (realities) with a probability of reality until observation sets one probability to 100% and the other to zero. (If I got this wrong, please don’t tell me.) Schrodinger's Cat is the most well known example of this theory.
Now, the idea that items simply don’t exist until they are observed doesn’t sit well with physicists, but they also don’t want to dive into philosophical or religious realms. The concept of consciousness ventures into philosophy, so the enigma is generally ignored by physicists because the math behind quantum physics, which includes the enigma, has been 100% accurate for predictions and modeling since the 1950s.
Side note: the book does cover a few examples of the practical applications stemming from the math of the quantum enigma: ultra-precise clocks, lasers, MRI machines, LEDs, to name a few.
The book details several attempts by physicists to disprove the observation dilemma because the concept that there is no reality without observation seems absurd. One of those focused on what Einstein called “spooky interactions.” The experiment took twin photons, which maintain the same state of being, and observed and affected one independently of its twin. The twin was not observed during the interaction. Upon observation the twin always ended in the same state as the twin despite the fact that it had been unobserved or interacted with. This doesn’t disprove the observation concept for reality but does create more questions.
Clearly, tons of science fiction has been born of thinking about the enigma. One big one right now is the concept of the multiverse: All possibilities are real therefore we have infinite realities.
Throughout the book, the authors discuss what constitutes observation, and one defense of the theory is that all large objects (non-microscopic) are always observed, so our reality feels real, not in flux, because consciousness involves observation of things we know about but can’t see. Also, trees falling in a wood make noise because we know they make noise… maybe.
Toward the end of the book, the authors begin the discussion of consciousness. It was pretty difficult for me to really follow because it really stays at the surface; however, it was interesting to learn that 95% of the universe is dark matter, about 75% energy and 20% matter. We have very little understanding of dark matter, but it could contain a consciousness. The other problem is that we also don’t really understand consciousness. Robots with AI for observing any experiment that reveals the quantum enigma becomes part of the experiment, meaning that until observed by someone undeniably conscious the measurements made by that robot are part of a superposition.
The authors include a couple of quotes in the conclusion that seem relevant in the attempted understanding of the enigma: “Why does the universe go through all the bother of existing.” Steven Hawking. And, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in our philosophy.” from Hamlet.
September 15, 2022
A very thorough, enjoyable, and quite sophisticated take on something that has been covered by many authors in the past decade. I think they did a great job and conveyed a lot of complex ideas beautifully. If I had one book to read on quantum physics, and what it means from a philosophical standpoint, this is the book!
September 26, 2021
How do you explain the internal combustion engine to a Roman? This is the task Rosenblum and Kuttner have set themselves. It's a brave effort. Putting my cards on the table I'll say that my poor physics degree is decades past and although I rubbed shoulders with Schrödinger's wave equation, that's all I did. I've read some very good books on quantum theory (referred to later) but this one tries to explain without the need to have any sort of technical background. It is a good starting point.
However it's an almost impossible task. The development of quantum theory, especially with Einstein's figure prominent makes for a fascinating read. So many brilliant minds focussing on the bizarre discovery that atomic particles (electrons, photons and others) behave as waves and particles according to how they are observed. Einstein was incorrect in his assertion that this was 'impossible' and he spent a good part of his time trying to prove Bohr and others were misguided.
The underlying reason for the book however is not to re-state the development of quantum theory for beginners but to work (sometime arduously) toward the idea that our consciousness actually affects entities on the sub-atomic scale. Rosenblum and Kuttner are treading in philosophical quick sands and they know it. Disclaimers abound and they are not promoting this interaction of the human (?) and the atomic as many other weird theories try to do. They see their job as setting out the case, allow you to get a perspective and make your mind up (or probably not).
As a failed physicist I am still intrigued by the subject and have a hierarchy of books to recommend.
By all means use Rosenblum as a starting point but then I can't recommend 'Quantum' by Manjit Kumar highly enough. He writes a more fulsome account of both the theory and underlying history. His account details how the scientific quantum geniuses were scattered from centres of excellence by Hitler and the Nazis (Kumar's account of how Einstein fought for displaced German scientists is touching)
Then there is John Gribben 'In Search of Schrodinger's Cat' and 'Schrodinger's Kittens'. Very readable. Ultimately you can try Feynman's Lectures on Physics if you want to see what the wave equation actually looks like. Feynman said "No one understands Quantum physics" ... he could be right.
However it's an almost impossible task. The development of quantum theory, especially with Einstein's figure prominent makes for a fascinating read. So many brilliant minds focussing on the bizarre discovery that atomic particles (electrons, photons and others) behave as waves and particles according to how they are observed. Einstein was incorrect in his assertion that this was 'impossible' and he spent a good part of his time trying to prove Bohr and others were misguided.
The underlying reason for the book however is not to re-state the development of quantum theory for beginners but to work (sometime arduously) toward the idea that our consciousness actually affects entities on the sub-atomic scale. Rosenblum and Kuttner are treading in philosophical quick sands and they know it. Disclaimers abound and they are not promoting this interaction of the human (?) and the atomic as many other weird theories try to do. They see their job as setting out the case, allow you to get a perspective and make your mind up (or probably not).
As a failed physicist I am still intrigued by the subject and have a hierarchy of books to recommend.
By all means use Rosenblum as a starting point but then I can't recommend 'Quantum' by Manjit Kumar highly enough. He writes a more fulsome account of both the theory and underlying history. His account details how the scientific quantum geniuses were scattered from centres of excellence by Hitler and the Nazis (Kumar's account of how Einstein fought for displaced German scientists is touching)
Then there is John Gribben 'In Search of Schrodinger's Cat' and 'Schrodinger's Kittens'. Very readable. Ultimately you can try Feynman's Lectures on Physics if you want to see what the wave equation actually looks like. Feynman said "No one understands Quantum physics" ... he could be right.
April 3, 2025
Es uno de los mejores libros que he leído sobre el tema tratando en forma explicita los dos problemas: La conciencia y el enigma cuántico no son solo dos misterios: son los dos misterios. Lo recomendaría como material de lectura adicional a los alumnos de Ingeniería que tengan Física III-Mecánica Cuántica.
Si la teoría cuántica nos dice que la realidad del mundo físico depende de nuestra observación del mismo. No estaríamos en un universo simulado, dónde necesitamos observar para crear la realidad que nos convenza que no vivimos en una simulación? Lo único que nos separaría de eso sería la consistencia, ya que se han hechos miles de experimentos y siempre se ha comprobado la mecánica cuántica.
Si nuestra observación y nuestra conciencia crea la realidad, quizás nosotros estamos viendo lo que nuestra conciencia quiere y por eso fabricamos la realidad. Por ejemplo en el experimento de la rendija nuestra conciencia quiere que creamos que es una onda y por eso vemos el patrón de interferencia(igual todos tendríamos que querer lo mismo, o en todo caso es un única conciencia para toda la humanidad?). Entonces, no somos nosotros los que decidimos con nuestro libre albedrío ver algo, sino es nuestra conciencia, y por lo tanto sería ella la que tiene libre albedrío de decidir ver el mundo de una forma y no nosotros. Y en todo caso que sería la conciencia,"dios" actuando en caso uno de nosotros? Los simuladores de la hipótesis de Bostrom, o una propiedad emergente de la funciones neuroquímicas pero independiente de nosotros como individuos. Quizás los autores crean que existe la conciencia pero en todo caso no saben/dicen/especula en lo que es.
Les recomiendo leer "Desondulando la mecánica Cuántica A.C. de la Torre, D. Mirabella, G. Izús ANALES AFA Vol. 2 Núm. 1 (1991) ANALES AFA - Volumen 2 No 1 - La Plata". Es un artículo excelente a la alternativa del colapso de la onda. Estos físicos en 1991 se atrevieron a comenzar a cuestionar la interpretación de Copenhagen mucho antes que en el primer mundo, claro pero como son del 3er mundo nadie se intereso.
----> https://anales.fisica.org.ar/index.ph...
La mejor explicación del Teorema de Bell la encontré en: How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival
Una reflexión final:
𝐎𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐨 𝐥𝐚 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐝: 𝐌𝐞𝐜𝐚́𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐂𝐮𝐚́𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐲 𝐥𝐚 𝐇𝐢𝐩𝐨́𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐨́𝐧
La intersección de la mecánica cuántica y la hipótesis de simulación plantea profundas preguntas sobre nuestra percepción de la realidad. Un aspecto central de esta exploración es la idea de que nuestras observaciones configuran la esencia de la existencia, lo que sugiere que lo que percibimos podría no ser la realidad definitiva, sino una construcción influenciada por nuestra consciencia.
𝐸𝑙 𝑅𝑜𝑙 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑎 𝑂𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜́𝑛 𝑒𝑛 𝑙𝑎 𝑀𝑒𝑐𝑎́𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝐶𝑢𝑎́𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎
En la mecánica cuántica, un principio fundamental establece que las partículas no poseen propiedades definidas hasta que se miden. Este concepto, articulado a través de la interpretación de Copenhague, enfatiza que la observación desempeña un papel crucial en la determinación del estado de un sistema cuántico. Por ejemplo, un fotón no tiene una polarización específica hasta que interactúa con un dispositivo de medición. Solo entonces asume un estado definido.
Este principio plantea preguntas apremiantes sobre la realidad. Si la observación es esencial para la existencia de una partícula, ¿podemos afirmar que nuestra realidad está configurada por nuestra consciencia? Esto nos lleva a considerar las implicaciones de la hipótesis de simulación.
𝐿𝑎 𝐻𝑖𝑝𝑜́𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑎 𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜́𝑛
Propuesta por el filósofo Nick Bostrom, la hipótesis de la simulación sugiere que nuestra realidad podría ser una simulación avanzada creada por una civilización más avanzada. De ser cierta, esto implicaría que podría no existir una física subyacente concreta tal como la entendemos tradicionalmente. En cambio, la realidad podría ser un entorno virtual donde las leyes de la física se manifiestan según los parámetros establecidos por la simulación.
Desde esta perspectiva, la simulación genera partículas fundamentales y sus propiedades, lo que nos permite percibir lo que consideramos "real". En lugar de experimentar una realidad resultante del colapso de innumerables funciones de onda, podríamos estar encontrando un entorno cuidadosamente construido que dicta nuestras experiencias.
𝐿𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑎 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑐𝑖𝑜́𝑛
A medida que profundizamos en la existencia —como las partículas atómicas—, nos encontramos con limitaciones que recuerdan a la resolución de una simulación. Nuestra incapacidad para observar la realidad "real" podría deberse a las limitaciones impuestas por la propia simulación, lo que nos lleva a cuestionar si nuestras observaciones reflejan una realidad objetiva o son simplemente los resultados de un programa sofisticado.
𝐿𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑗𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝐹𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖
Esta perspectiva también puede arrojar luz sobre la paradoja de Fermi, que cuestiona por qué aún no hemos encontrado civilizaciones extraterrestres a pesar de la inmensidad del universo. Si existimos dentro de una simulación, es plausible que sus creadores la diseñaran para observar una civilización en desarrollo, como la nuestra, navegando por un universo infinito sin encontrar otras formas de vida. Esto les permite estudiar la evolución de la consciencia de forma aislada.
𝐿𝑎 𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜́𝑛
Sin embargo, surge una pregunta intrigante: si somos una simulación creada por una civilización avanzada, ¿por qué necesitarían simularnos? Si poseen un conocimiento exhaustivo de la realidad, similar al demonio de Descartes, que lo sabe todo, ¿no comprenderían ya nuestras reacciones a diversos estímulos? La respuesta podría residir en la naturaleza misma de la exploración. Los creadores podrían buscar presenciar el desarrollo de los acontecimientos en tiempo real, interactuando con la imprevisibilidad de la consciencia y las decisiones que toman los seres sintientes.
𝑀𝑒𝑐𝑎́𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝐶𝑢𝑎́𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝑦 𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜́𝑛 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑎 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑
En última instancia, el principio de que las propiedades no existen hasta que se observan se alinea con la idea de una realidad construida. Como sugirió el físico Niels Bohr, lo que consideramos "microscópico" es simplemente un marco conceptual para describir nuestros instrumentos de medición y sus interacciones. El acto de medir —la observación— crea una realidad que depende de nuestra interacción con ella.
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜́𝑛
La interacción entre la mecánica cuántica y la hipótesis de la simulación desafía nuestra comprensión de la existencia. Fomenta la exploración de los límites entre la observación, la realidad y el potencial de otras formas de conciencia más allá de nuestro universo percibido. Al explorar estas complejas ideas, recordamos que nuestra comprensión de la realidad es una interacción dinámica entre lo que observamos y los mecanismos subyacentes que gobiernan nuestro universo.
Si la teoría cuántica nos dice que la realidad del mundo físico depende de nuestra observación del mismo. No estaríamos en un universo simulado, dónde necesitamos observar para crear la realidad que nos convenza que no vivimos en una simulación? Lo único que nos separaría de eso sería la consistencia, ya que se han hechos miles de experimentos y siempre se ha comprobado la mecánica cuántica.
Si nuestra observación y nuestra conciencia crea la realidad, quizás nosotros estamos viendo lo que nuestra conciencia quiere y por eso fabricamos la realidad. Por ejemplo en el experimento de la rendija nuestra conciencia quiere que creamos que es una onda y por eso vemos el patrón de interferencia(igual todos tendríamos que querer lo mismo, o en todo caso es un única conciencia para toda la humanidad?). Entonces, no somos nosotros los que decidimos con nuestro libre albedrío ver algo, sino es nuestra conciencia, y por lo tanto sería ella la que tiene libre albedrío de decidir ver el mundo de una forma y no nosotros. Y en todo caso que sería la conciencia,"dios" actuando en caso uno de nosotros? Los simuladores de la hipótesis de Bostrom, o una propiedad emergente de la funciones neuroquímicas pero independiente de nosotros como individuos. Quizás los autores crean que existe la conciencia pero en todo caso no saben/dicen/especula en lo que es.
Les recomiendo leer "Desondulando la mecánica Cuántica A.C. de la Torre, D. Mirabella, G. Izús ANALES AFA Vol. 2 Núm. 1 (1991) ANALES AFA - Volumen 2 No 1 - La Plata". Es un artículo excelente a la alternativa del colapso de la onda. Estos físicos en 1991 se atrevieron a comenzar a cuestionar la interpretación de Copenhagen mucho antes que en el primer mundo, claro pero como son del 3er mundo nadie se intereso.
----> https://anales.fisica.org.ar/index.ph...
La mejor explicación del Teorema de Bell la encontré en: How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival
Una reflexión final:
𝐎𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐨 𝐥𝐚 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐝: 𝐌𝐞𝐜𝐚́𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐂𝐮𝐚́𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐲 𝐥𝐚 𝐇𝐢𝐩𝐨́𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐨́𝐧
La intersección de la mecánica cuántica y la hipótesis de simulación plantea profundas preguntas sobre nuestra percepción de la realidad. Un aspecto central de esta exploración es la idea de que nuestras observaciones configuran la esencia de la existencia, lo que sugiere que lo que percibimos podría no ser la realidad definitiva, sino una construcción influenciada por nuestra consciencia.
𝐸𝑙 𝑅𝑜𝑙 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑎 𝑂𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜́𝑛 𝑒𝑛 𝑙𝑎 𝑀𝑒𝑐𝑎́𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝐶𝑢𝑎́𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎
En la mecánica cuántica, un principio fundamental establece que las partículas no poseen propiedades definidas hasta que se miden. Este concepto, articulado a través de la interpretación de Copenhague, enfatiza que la observación desempeña un papel crucial en la determinación del estado de un sistema cuántico. Por ejemplo, un fotón no tiene una polarización específica hasta que interactúa con un dispositivo de medición. Solo entonces asume un estado definido.
Este principio plantea preguntas apremiantes sobre la realidad. Si la observación es esencial para la existencia de una partícula, ¿podemos afirmar que nuestra realidad está configurada por nuestra consciencia? Esto nos lleva a considerar las implicaciones de la hipótesis de simulación.
𝐿𝑎 𝐻𝑖𝑝𝑜́𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑎 𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜́𝑛
Propuesta por el filósofo Nick Bostrom, la hipótesis de la simulación sugiere que nuestra realidad podría ser una simulación avanzada creada por una civilización más avanzada. De ser cierta, esto implicaría que podría no existir una física subyacente concreta tal como la entendemos tradicionalmente. En cambio, la realidad podría ser un entorno virtual donde las leyes de la física se manifiestan según los parámetros establecidos por la simulación.
Desde esta perspectiva, la simulación genera partículas fundamentales y sus propiedades, lo que nos permite percibir lo que consideramos "real". En lugar de experimentar una realidad resultante del colapso de innumerables funciones de onda, podríamos estar encontrando un entorno cuidadosamente construido que dicta nuestras experiencias.
𝐿𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑎 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑐𝑖𝑜́𝑛
A medida que profundizamos en la existencia —como las partículas atómicas—, nos encontramos con limitaciones que recuerdan a la resolución de una simulación. Nuestra incapacidad para observar la realidad "real" podría deberse a las limitaciones impuestas por la propia simulación, lo que nos lleva a cuestionar si nuestras observaciones reflejan una realidad objetiva o son simplemente los resultados de un programa sofisticado.
𝐿𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑗𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝐹𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖
Esta perspectiva también puede arrojar luz sobre la paradoja de Fermi, que cuestiona por qué aún no hemos encontrado civilizaciones extraterrestres a pesar de la inmensidad del universo. Si existimos dentro de una simulación, es plausible que sus creadores la diseñaran para observar una civilización en desarrollo, como la nuestra, navegando por un universo infinito sin encontrar otras formas de vida. Esto les permite estudiar la evolución de la consciencia de forma aislada.
𝐿𝑎 𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜́𝑛
Sin embargo, surge una pregunta intrigante: si somos una simulación creada por una civilización avanzada, ¿por qué necesitarían simularnos? Si poseen un conocimiento exhaustivo de la realidad, similar al demonio de Descartes, que lo sabe todo, ¿no comprenderían ya nuestras reacciones a diversos estímulos? La respuesta podría residir en la naturaleza misma de la exploración. Los creadores podrían buscar presenciar el desarrollo de los acontecimientos en tiempo real, interactuando con la imprevisibilidad de la consciencia y las decisiones que toman los seres sintientes.
𝑀𝑒𝑐𝑎́𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝐶𝑢𝑎́𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝑦 𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜́𝑛 𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑎 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑
En última instancia, el principio de que las propiedades no existen hasta que se observan se alinea con la idea de una realidad construida. Como sugirió el físico Niels Bohr, lo que consideramos "microscópico" es simplemente un marco conceptual para describir nuestros instrumentos de medición y sus interacciones. El acto de medir —la observación— crea una realidad que depende de nuestra interacción con ella.
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜́𝑛
La interacción entre la mecánica cuántica y la hipótesis de la simulación desafía nuestra comprensión de la existencia. Fomenta la exploración de los límites entre la observación, la realidad y el potencial de otras formas de conciencia más allá de nuestro universo percibido. Al explorar estas complejas ideas, recordamos que nuestra comprensión de la realidad es una interacción dinámica entre lo que observamos y los mecanismos subyacentes que gobiernan nuestro universo.
April 27, 2011
I got this book with the hopes of obtaining tools to help me understand -- and to help me help others to understand -- some of the concepts and popular [mis-]conceptions of quantum mechanics. It's become almost de rigueur among New Age spiritualists to pilfer bits of quantum theory for use in fortressing and promoting their ideas and books and DVDs and seminars ad nauseum. (see "What the Bleep do We Know?" and "The Secret" and huge sections of book stores). Ideas such as "our consciousness creates reality", matter can exist in multiple locations at the same time, and matter and energy are the same thing, are enticing concepts to the woo-woo crowd, but it must be remembered: quantum effects take place at sub-atomic levels, where time and space and dimensions are only vaguely related to our level of reality. The same can be said of the theory of Relativity. Yes, space bends in the presence of mass, and yes, the speed of light cannot be exceeded, and yes, time slows down as one accelerates. But these are all phenomenon that can only be experienced on astronomical scales. Likewise, quantum effects occur on the nuclear scale.
I actually didn't find what I was looking for in Quantum Enigma. In fact, it's just another book that takes a stab at explaining a topic that is -- while undeniably the most tested and proven theory of science -- very complicated and very difficult to understand. Very. And its concepts are often bizarre, counter-intuitive and down-right out of reach for the great majority of us. Including all those spewers of non-science non-sense.
I actually didn't find what I was looking for in Quantum Enigma. In fact, it's just another book that takes a stab at explaining a topic that is -- while undeniably the most tested and proven theory of science -- very complicated and very difficult to understand. Very. And its concepts are often bizarre, counter-intuitive and down-right out of reach for the great majority of us. Including all those spewers of non-science non-sense.
September 10, 2008
Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner's, book, Quantum Enigma, is an interesting read, but if you’re looking for answers into the enigma of quantum events, you will be disappointed. There are no sure answers into the perplexing world of the quantum or for that matter why anything exist at all! In this publication and others like it. So in the final analysis, which may even be your own, is probably as good as anyone else’s. If you want to get a clear understanding of the wave-particle dilemma, this book offers a good description of such events. The analogy of using paired boxes while the quantum event is spread out in both and thus only existing in one after you looked into one of them, is an excellent way of saying that you do indeed create your own reality. You will also be left with the notion that you are a particle as well as a wave. Does that seem odd? Or is that satisfying in some ways regarding your true existence. If you’re looking for a confirmation of God’s existence, you won’t find it there either. But if you read between the lines, you might have the notion that you are GOD! At least in part…you are part of the same broken mirror. Ala the Big Bang!
December 22, 2014
A slightly frustrating book. Thirteen chapters taking us from quantum physics to consciousness and then just four chapters exploring the reverse journey. These last four are by far the more interesting - hence the frustration. Interesting, though. If you think you understand this book, you haven't read it properly. If you read it properly, it will give you food for thought that will more than slightly scramble your brain. I did a course in Quantum Theory as part of my degree, but that was over 30 years ago and things have changed a lot since then. Also, my degree was just about the mathematics, not the philosophy and the alarming implications. If a tree falls over in a forest when no one is there to witness it, does it still make a noise. Well, actually, does it even exist if no one is there? This statement may make you want to read this book. It may also be the conclusive proof that I didn't really understand it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 194 reviews