Ebook What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics Adam Becker 9781541698970 Books

Product details Paperback 384 pages Publisher Basic Books; Reprint edition (September 3, 2019) Language English ISBN-10 1541698975

What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics Adam Becker 9781541698970 Books Reviews

• This book is worth while as there is some interesting history presented and is well written and researched. However, the author’s main underlying purpose is to argue for pilot-wave and/or many-worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM), and to argue against the Copenhagen Interpretation (C.I.). Unfortunately, his obvious bias prevents him from articulating fairly what the C.I. actually was or why it existed,… even implying it was incoherent and adopted en masse due to some conspiracy of personalities, particularly Niels Bohr.
  
  This is questionable to say the least as it's not actually confusing as to why the C.I. was adopted en masse; As pointed out to E. Schrodinger at the time, the wavefunction can not be an observable physical entity as he envisioned it, as it evolves in a tensor product space. Therefore, it is quite rational why one would adopt a Born Rule type interpretation of the wavefunction. Both the Born Rule component of the C.I. and the "shut up and calculate" component merely reflects how actual QM experiments must occur. The former on account of the fact that there is only one measurement result despite a possible superposition of states as described via the wavefuncion, and the latter on account of the fact that no one can actually have a wavefunction description of himself and the experimental apparatus. Another rational reason why the C.I. was adopted en masse, was that the standard Hilbert space mathematical foundation of QM with von Neumann's projection postulate (wavefunction collapse) was able to unify both the matrix mechanics of Heisenberg and the wave formulation of Schrodinger. Certainly a general scientific positivist mentality was a great influence in motivating C.I. at the time as well.... as it should have.
  
  "I can well appreciate that, in the early days of quantum mechanics, something of the nature of Niels Bohr's perspective on the subject was almost a necessity, so that the theory could actually be used, and progress in quantum physics could be made" - Roger Penrose
  
  The author briefly mentions twice that Bohr was influenced by Kant, but remarkably never attempts to explain Kant’s epistemology.
  
  Considering Bohr’s interpretational contributions to quantum theory, Abraham Pais, nuclear physicist and renowned biographer and physics historian, stated that Bohr was “one of the most important twentieth century philosophers,…. As such he must be considered the successor to [Immanuel] Kant,…”.
  
  Essentially, the C.I. argument was that the measurement problem is epistemic in nature, and therefore not a problem with the theory itself. In other words, the discontinuity between the deterministic evolution of the wavefunction via the Schrodinger equation, and the “collapse” to a measurement result, is on account of the conditions of observability given the nature of mind. Which is to say, we must supply a conceptual form in which the ‘underlying reality’ is to be observed in the first place. In the standard Hilbert space formulation of QM, the Operator and Basis are supplied by the physicist given the particular experimental arrangement and interpretation of results. So, if one is so inclined to imagine a de facto metaphysical ‘underlying reality’, one can see that this supposed reality is projected or conformed to, our a-priori conceptual framework, in order to meet the conditions of observability…. by a mind so constituted, given its evolution to synthesize experience on the macroscopic scale…. i.e. "it" is only a particle or a wave to the extent that those notions are defined by the experimental apparatus and interpretations thereof.
  
  And no, an epistemic interpretation does not mean that consciousness ‘reaches out’ as it were and interacts physically with the quantum system to cause collapse of the supposed physical wavefunction. There was some historical confusion on this point. We’re talking about a biological system evolved at the macroscopic scale with it’s own emergent laws, processing experience to form a synthesis for the understanding, which since this mind is NOT omnipotent, must of necessity have conditions for observability to be at all possible. This precludes knowledge of ‘independent reality’ because intellectual artifacts or 'conceptual forms of thought' are always implicit in the experimental arrangement, presumptions, and interpretations....
  
  “There is no way to remove the observer — us — from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception — and hence the observations upon which our theories are based — is not direct, but rather is shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our brains.”- Stephen Hawking
  
  “The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness [mind] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - Bernard d'Espagnat
  
  The author does not state that the pilot-wave for multiple particles, evolves in a tensor product space, which is to say not in our 3 dimensional space, and therefore is in principal unobservable. Likewise, the many-worlds are in principal unobservable. Despite suggestions to the contrary in the book, this is entirely different from Mach’s view that atoms are metaphysical on account of not observing them,… as in principal, atoms could be observed or rationally hypothesized given observable attributes. Metaphysical entities are precisely those that are intrinsically unobservable, like the pilot-wave or multiverse. In contrast, an epistemic interpretation does not propose unscientific metaphysics, but rather artifacts of thought, which IS in principal investigable as the field of epistemology. It’s just that the problem extends beyond physics, and into a field that is undeveloped. See “John von Neumann’s Cut” to substantiate this point.
  
  Since all interpretations of QM are empirically indistinguishable, it becomes a Choice of the theoretician which is to be his guide,… and therefore are epistemic in any case.
  
  I don’t feel that the author presents the interpretation of the Bell inequality tests entirely fairly; The empirical failure of the Bell inequalities refutes ‘local realism’, by which is meant that at least one of the following implicit assumptions are refuted,… locality, counterfactual definiteness [Stapp, Eberhard], or no conspiracy condition. The Copenhagen Interpretation was philosophically aligned with the rejection of counterfactual definiteness, …i.e. that elements of reality or attribute values exist independently of measurement,… or more properly, that for statistical purposes it is valid to presume measurements that could be, but have not been performed (this would have been rejected by C.I.). The author seems to imply that no such assumption is made in the Bell tests, despite that it is the very point of the Bell tests to presume this,…. resulting in the conclusion that no such classical presumptions of hidden variables can reproduce the results of quantum mechanics, given Einstein locality. The generalized Bell theorem, however, makes no assumptions with respect to the form of the quantum entity or attributes being measured (particle, wave, spin, polarization, position, momentum, etc).
  
  The author is correct to say that philosophy is important in physics as at minimum a guide for theoretical research and interpretation of results. The author is also correct to point out Quine’s thesis that verification or falsification can not be done in isolation, free and clear of any presumptions and interpretations, thus refuting the extremism of logical positivism. However, Quine did not refute scientific positivism nor verification nor falsification as valid and essential guides for physicists,….. as if he managed to crack the door open such that it was then legitimate for metaphysics to infect science. The many-worlds formulation is itself an extremism of mathematical idealism, in that it essentially lets the mathematics of the wavefunction solutions of the Schrödinger equation supplant the work of the theoretician.
  
  "As far as laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality" - A. Einstein
  
  Not mentioned in the book as well is that the C.I. has since been revised with decoherence, in the consistent histories interpretation,… “Copenhagen done right”.
  
  A few general-reader books by prominent physicists that speak out against metaphysical speculation in physics and cosmology are,...
  -The Trouble With Physics The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next - Lee Smolin
  -Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe - Roger Penrose
  An excellent and fairly unbiased exposition of the various interpretations of QM....
  Beyond Measure - Jim Baggott
• This volume is the single best explication to the general reader of the historical progression of foundational issues in QM that has ever been written.
  
  In addition---
  
  1. The author really understands the measurement problem.
  2. The author really understands what Einstein's criticisms were and they were NOT about randomness.
  3. The author really acknowledges that Bohr was spewing out inane baloney from the early 20's onward.
  
  It is impossible to cover all foundational issues in depth in 300 pages, but the author covers everyone from Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, de Broglie through Bohm, Everett, Bell, Clauser, Aspect, GRW, Zeh and beyond.
  
  What sets this volume apart from other surveys is the author's grasp on the key differences in interpretational issues, e.g. something as simple as the difference between 'incomplete' and 'inaccurate' or as complex as locality+incompleteness vs non-locality+(maybe)completeness.
  
  I could go on and on but why waste any more of your time. Just go and buy it.
  
  FIVE STARS
• This book is very timely. With many Physicists opening the door to Quantum Foundational issues and wanting to know the true underlying reality, not content with merely shutting up and calculating, this book will be a supplement in any library concerning the history of Quantum Physics and the so called dissidents of the Copenhagen Interpretation mainly in David Bohm's Pilot-Wave Theory and Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation but also though smaller GRW, in addition too as well John S. Bell.
  
  Part I This was a good start concerning the Copenhagen Interpretation and its founders. Also early dissidents like Einstein and Schrödinger. I think this book is very lay friendly and easy to follow along concerning the theory and early issues with it. You also find that there really was no singular Copenhagen Interpretation despite Heisenberg giving them a singular label. Also you start to see how politics and social issues really helped launch Copenhagen. I learned how charismatic Bohr was yet how his very own students said he had issues with comprehension but also how vague he was and how people like Heisenberg despite not being a Nazi supported Nazi Germany (indeed Pascual himself was a Nazi), you see how bad Heisenberg was with experimental physics despite his somewhat confidence in German physics above others. Einstein by contrast to these men took on no students as Bohr, as he wasn't as charismatic and though spoke well, sometimes he was misunderstood such as in the case with Bohr or the when others wrote on his behalf but not in as clear a way as he would have, he also wrote longer statements than say Bell and he helped the U.S. in the Nuclear Race.
  
  Part II This is where the major dissidents who made rival theories to Copenhagen appear but also others like Bell who advanced the conversation and gave scathing critics. These include mainly David Bohm and Hugh Everett. You find just how exiled Bohm was mainly for his communist affiliation but also for going against the status quo in the Copenhagen Interpretation. Also how Everett was with his prankster style yet sort of nonchalant attitude (interestingly you learn that Wheeler would try to help him get it out there and that Everett never cared to be an Academic but was content as a Cold War technocrat). Bohm would later abandon Communism but also his own Interpretation due to these many factors.
  
  Part III Here is where the story continues and the next generations picked up where the former one's left off. You get to see how Bohm picked up his own Theory and revived it again thanks to Basil Hiley and some students. And others who advanced the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Everett as well. Moreover many others who advanced Bell's inequalities via experiment. This chapter was very helpful as many of these figures are hardly as known to a more lay audience such as Dieter Zeh and John Clauser and others. Very informative. Also GRW Theory makes an appearance along with David Albert.
  
  You see throughout this book how changes due to Social and Political issues affected many of these men, some not even having a job despite their importance in these Foundational Issues and how many did not give them a chance but in the end they made an impact unto today.
  
  I also found Adam Becker's comments on Philosophy to be extremely needed and he rightly went against the notion that Philosophy is dead or of lesser importance but it is precisely these historical and social issues that pushed this wrong idea of Philosophy it seems into Academia to the chagrin of people like Einstein who held it in high esteem. This was a pleasant suprise to me. The issues concerning the "Shut up and Calculate!" approach he also addresses as problematic which I was very pleased with as well.
  
  The last part an Appendix was concerning how these different Theories (including GRW) solve the Delayed-Choice experiment which is a very much discussed topic at least to a more lay audience and was very glad to see it included.
  
  The only 2 minor problems I had with the book is that a lot of the stuff on Nazi Germany seemed to not be important concerning the history of these realist dissident interpreations. However it was still very fascinating and had very import things in it still, like how this War affected the Physics community and to learn more concerning the personal lives of these men who are often adored. The last issue was the footnotes. Since the book itself doesn't give you an inserted number reference in the text as you are reading it makes it hard to know if you need to check for one. I practically even forgot about them throughout the book however he does give a ton of references to practically everything in there which is extremely helpful.
  
  Despite these small gripes, this is a book certainly needed. If you don't have it, make sure to add it to your collection, it is a must have.