"Quantum mechanics is humanity's finest scientific achievement. It explains why the sun shines and how your eyes can see. It's the theory behind the LEDs in your phone and the nuclear hearts of space probes. Every physicist agrees quantum physics is spectacularly successful. But ask them what quantum physics means, and the result will be a brawl. At stake is the nature of the Universe itself. What does it mean for something to be real? What is the role of consciousness in the Universe? And do quantum rules apply to very small objects like electrons and protons, but not us? In What is Real?, Adam Becker brings to vivid life the brave researchers whose quest for the truth led them to challenge Bohr: David Bohm, who picked up Einstein's mantle and sought to make quantum mechanics deterministic, all while being hounded by the forces of McCarthyism; Hugh Everett, who argued …
"Quantum mechanics is humanity's finest scientific achievement. It explains why the sun shines and how your eyes can see. It's the theory behind the LEDs in your phone and the nuclear hearts of space probes. Every physicist agrees quantum physics is spectacularly successful. But ask them what quantum physics means, and the result will be a brawl. At stake is the nature of the Universe itself. What does it mean for something to be real? What is the role of consciousness in the Universe? And do quantum rules apply to very small objects like electrons and protons, but not us? In What is Real?, Adam Becker brings to vivid life the brave researchers whose quest for the truth led them to challenge Bohr: David Bohm, who picked up Einstein's mantle and sought to make quantum mechanics deterministic, all while being hounded by the forces of McCarthyism; Hugh Everett, who argued that everything, big and small, must be governed by the same rules; and John Bell, who went to great lengths to eradicate the power of the god-like observer from the core of quantum physics. And they paid dearly, their reputations, careers, and sometimes lives ruined completely. But history has been kinder to them than their contemporaries were. As Becker shows, the brave intellectual giants have inspired a growing army of physicists and philosophers intent both on making a philosophically more satisfying theory of the universe and a more useful one as well. A gripping story of some of humanity's greatest ideas and the high cost with which many have pursued them, What is Real? is intellectual history at its passionate best"--
Based on this book, physics is more about peoples feelings and interpersonal relationships than about the truth, which feels like it checks out. I did learn some fun things about quantum physics and have a better understanding of things like many-worlds and quantum computing now, so there are evidently pretty good translations from obtuse maths into generally comprehensible explanations of concepts (I hope, I have no way of knowing this since I don't understand the maths).
Betteridge's law states when the headline is in the form of a question, the answer is always "No." Applying that to this book, nothing is real and nothing to get hung about. The subtitle admits that searching for the real is an unfinished quest but implies it is finishable. Indeed, our view of science is that its goal is to get to the bottom of things and is the only way to do so we have.
Full disclosure: I side with J. B. S. Haldane and against David Deutch, both of whom show up in this book that "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." But I'm also a human and would like to know what is real. More disclosure: I don't think science will tell us, at least the science we have now, because I don't believe a view from nowhere …
Betteridge's law states when the headline is in the form of a question, the answer is always "No." Applying that to this book, nothing is real and nothing to get hung about. The subtitle admits that searching for the real is an unfinished quest but implies it is finishable. Indeed, our view of science is that its goal is to get to the bottom of things and is the only way to do so we have.
Full disclosure: I side with J. B. S. Haldane and against David Deutch, both of whom show up in this book that "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." But I'm also a human and would like to know what is real. More disclosure: I don't think science will tell us, at least the science we have now, because I don't believe a view from nowhere will come up with a view compatible with a view from my perspective.
I'll explain a little so you don't think I'm one of those Continental philosophers that Steven Hawking and Neil DeGrasse Tyson declared irrelevant. I see science, like cartography, as providing maps and all maps leave some things out. You wouldn't use, say, a subway map to measure the distance between two points. As such, I'm fine with the Copenhagen interpretation that Adam Becker clearly dislikes. He never comes out and says so but I believe he sides with David Albert whom he quotes as calling Copenhagen "gibberish." (More disclosure: I also like Copenhagen's TV shows like Borgen and Forbrydelsen.) My background is in mathematics and I understand the concept of isomorphism which allows complementary descriptions for the same underlying systems. As for "shut up and calculate," I don't require the "shut up" part because, as a sometime teacher, I appreciate the need for good explanations. I'll talk more about good explanations when I review David Deutsch later on.
Adam Becker provides lots of explanations. His "Bell's Theorem" description was among the clearest I'd seen. And his historic approach was enlightening, exposing the political and economic underpinnings of what gets studied and which explanations prevail in a subject that is supposed to only be seeking truth. Also, I somehow hadn't been aware before that Heisenberg was a Nazi. I wonder if that entered into Walter White's borrowing his name.
Adam Becker is comes right out and says that Science is mired in the political, but like a good physicist, hopes this can be minimized in practice. He cites the creationists and climate change deniers as being unable or unwilling to make that effort but he forgets that physicist Freeman Dyson (who also appears in this book) thinks much of the climate science is flawed and that too much is being made of global warming.
All in all, this book is a good approach for novices to the cross between philosophy and quantum physics and I enjoyed reading it.
An entertaining and interesting overview of some of the issues surrounding the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The author has a strong opinion that the Copenhagen interpretation (to the extent that such a thing exists) involving wavefunction collapse is bankrupt, although he's not certain which of the competing interpretations are correct.
The book lingers more on the story of the people behind the science and how various interpretations were formulated and debated than on the technical or philosophical issues associated with each interpretation, although these are also briefly discussed.
Overall I think that this is a great book for a layman (such as myself) who wants a brisk, readable introduction to some of the history and controversy surrounding the science. I also think that the book is interesting enough that readers might be inspired to explore the subject more deeply than this book allows after reading it.
I remember liking this book, vaguely, but it was quite some time ago, and it does have some issues which detract from it a lot, namely outright errors, but also some things aren't mentioned which change the flavor of the text. It's not as self complete as it seems. I recommend reading critiques: https://www.sunclipse.org/wp-content/downloads/2019/02/becker.pdf (From Gender to Gleason: The Case of Adam Becker’s What Is Real? by Blake C. Stacey. Critiques the presentation of history in what isn't mentioned in the book as well as pointing out actual errors.) https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.5053411 - Points out he gets the EPR experiment wrong, which is kinda a big deal. Peter Woit had a critique, if I remember correctly, as well.
