Scan barcode
sivanib's review against another edition
emotional
mysterious
reflective
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
cornelio3's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
inspiring
reflective
sad
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
kitkatt's review against another edition
1.0
not really sure what to say about this it was a science book i had to read for class and i did not enjoy because chemistry and physics are not my thing that is all
nisha_27's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
mysterious
reflective
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.75
Content Warnings
Minor: War
kjvelz's review against another edition
1.0
I saw this Fall 2014, and it remains the worst play I have ever seen. I really want those two hours of my life back.
chris_gmn's review against another edition
3.0
Reading a play rather than watching it doesn’t do enough justice to the source material. In my opinion, theatrical performance is a unique medium that doesn’t translate well into literature. While it may be a wonderful play, it is an average book, stripped of the experience intended for a stage performance.
ryn_k's review against another edition
dark
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
david_reads_books's review against another edition
4.0
Complimetarity (an electron is both a particle and a wave) and the uncertainty principle rule the dialogue in this play. Did Heisenberg ever calculate the critical mass needed to sustain a chain reaction? Could Bohr have saved his young son Christian from a sailing boat accident that claimed his life? Did Heisenberg hold back on promises to Hitler for a bomb per moral reasons? Did Bohr allow Heisenberg to visit him during the war and then not talk politics?
This play is a hypothetical dialogue between Werner Heisenberg, Neils Bohr and Bohr's wife Margrethe. Heisenberg DID go to Copenhagen in 1941 to visit Bohr. These two brilliant physicists were at the forefront of quantum theory and the understanding of "The Bomb". Indeed, sustained nuclear fission would not occur for another two years (1943, Chicago). Bohr was Danish and part Jewish, and Heisenberg a devout German. What did they talk about in Copenhagen?
Bohr and Heisenberg had collaborated since young Heisenberg burst onto the physics map in the early 1920's. It was difficult for the few physicist that were studying the inner-atom to get together under regular circumstances, let alone during WWII. But this meeting actually happened. Did either one of them think the other would divulge new knowledge? Surely neither of these men would switch allegiance. We are uncertain of the true conversations that occurred at this 1941 meeting in Copenhagen at the Bohr house, or on walks outside.
Bohr was known for his multi-draft papers that demanded perfection. Heisenberg was know for his unbelievable quickness and precision of understanding. Margrethe was not a scientist, yet wrote the many drafts for her husband Neils, and thus provides an objective outside view and comments throughout the two acts.
As a physics major, I understand the double-slit experiment, the particle/wave Copenhagen complementarity interpretation, and I've read bios on each of these men. So I followed this dialogue completely. Even if you did not know the back-story here at all, the banter between these characters should be able to be followed. This is my only 1* subtraction, since more physics knowledge would enhance your experience. Surely you might want to know more about how these two scientists, with their research on the energy in the atom, were able to meet during WWII.
Thankfully, there is an excellent 30-page postscript at the end of this play. Frayn does a great job explaining where he got his ideas for this play, and discusses the lives of these three characters, with a focus on the physics and politics. A bibliography then follows for more reading. I even liked the 2-page time-line graph of the history of the electron, through quantum theory, through the end of WWII which very quickly summarizes atomic progress. If you are new (or rusty) with this physics, you might like to look at these last 2 pages of the book first (prior to reading the play), to show you the path to the nuclear bomb, with complimentarity defined mid-time-line.
The dialogue tends to be quick in this book, and I wish I could have seen the play. The book cover says "Winner of the 2000 Tony Award for Best Play". So obviously you don't need to be a nuclear physicist to enjoy this!
This play is a hypothetical dialogue between Werner Heisenberg, Neils Bohr and Bohr's wife Margrethe. Heisenberg DID go to Copenhagen in 1941 to visit Bohr. These two brilliant physicists were at the forefront of quantum theory and the understanding of "The Bomb". Indeed, sustained nuclear fission would not occur for another two years (1943, Chicago). Bohr was Danish and part Jewish, and Heisenberg a devout German. What did they talk about in Copenhagen?
Bohr and Heisenberg had collaborated since young Heisenberg burst onto the physics map in the early 1920's. It was difficult for the few physicist that were studying the inner-atom to get together under regular circumstances, let alone during WWII. But this meeting actually happened. Did either one of them think the other would divulge new knowledge? Surely neither of these men would switch allegiance. We are uncertain of the true conversations that occurred at this 1941 meeting in Copenhagen at the Bohr house, or on walks outside.
Bohr was known for his multi-draft papers that demanded perfection. Heisenberg was know for his unbelievable quickness and precision of understanding. Margrethe was not a scientist, yet wrote the many drafts for her husband Neils, and thus provides an objective outside view and comments throughout the two acts.
As a physics major, I understand the double-slit experiment, the particle/wave Copenhagen complementarity interpretation, and I've read bios on each of these men. So I followed this dialogue completely. Even if you did not know the back-story here at all, the banter between these characters should be able to be followed. This is my only 1* subtraction, since more physics knowledge would enhance your experience. Surely you might want to know more about how these two scientists, with their research on the energy in the atom, were able to meet during WWII.
Thankfully, there is an excellent 30-page postscript at the end of this play. Frayn does a great job explaining where he got his ideas for this play, and discusses the lives of these three characters, with a focus on the physics and politics. A bibliography then follows for more reading. I even liked the 2-page time-line graph of the history of the electron, through quantum theory, through the end of WWII which very quickly summarizes atomic progress. If you are new (or rusty) with this physics, you might like to look at these last 2 pages of the book first (prior to reading the play), to show you the path to the nuclear bomb, with complimentarity defined mid-time-line.
The dialogue tends to be quick in this book, and I wish I could have seen the play. The book cover says "Winner of the 2000 Tony Award for Best Play". So obviously you don't need to be a nuclear physicist to enjoy this!
lilly7177's review against another edition
emotional
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5