Scan barcode
A review by jasonfurman
What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics by Adam Becker
5.0
An excellent book that does not answer the title question—but is mostly convincing that the question is worth asking and that we can make scientific progress in addressing it. The book is well written with an interspersing of human stories, scientific description, and Becker’s own more original analysis/arguments/interpretation of the historical field of “quantum foundations”, which is to say understanding what the weird equations of quantum mechanics mean.
Unlike most histories of science, Adam Becker’s book in some ways is about failure and going badly off track not success. Specifically, the failure of physicists to think seriously about the origins and meanings of quantum mechanics, the marginalization of those who tried to, and the problems that come from physicists acting as amateur philosophers without being aware of major developments in philosophy (like realism overcoming logical positivism/empiricism).
Adam Becker borders on scathing on Bohr and the circle’s around him’s devleopment of what came to be called the “Copenhagen Interpretation” of quantum mechanics. The interpretation centered around probabilistic waves becoming deterministic particles when they are somehow measured by a measuring apparatus that is itself deterministic. In effect, they were assuming that classical mechanics applied to large objects but quantum mechanics to small ones. And more to the point, they were taking an attitude that has been described as “shut up and calculate.”
Becker has four arguments against the Copenhagen interpretation: (i) that it was actually a lot of different interpretations by a lot of different people and never actually a single interpretation; (ii) that all of these failed basic tests of logical consistency; (iii) that all of this was reinforced by Bohr’s charisma and his circle’s antagonism to challenging the intreptation; and (iv) that this is consequential because it inhibits the devlopment of new scientific questions and potential experiments.
Becker then develops some of the alternative interpretations at great length together with mini-biograophies and descriptions of the process of discovery, placing the most emphasis on Bohm’s deterministic pilot waves idea, Everett’s Many Worlds hypothesis and Bell’s inequality. He then rushes briefly through some other ideas towards the end of the book, including superdeterminism, and information theory.
The biographies he tells of these scientists—including Bohr’s exile to Brazil, Everett’s greater interest in drinking/womanizing than in physics, and Bell publishing in a random journal rather than a top one—is not just ancillary entertainment but a core part of the argument. Most science stories are about progress and triumph. This one is to some degree about contingency and chance and the ways it can lead science astray. Bohr’s charisma vs. the problems of the alternative messengers are treated as historical accidents that affected the ability to have a more full debate/research program on the foundations of quantum mechanics. When this was combined with incentives (e.g., all the funding for physics coming from the military) the effects were powerful.
One strength of Becker’s book is his serious intergration of analytic philosophy, his excellent explanations of it, and his relating this to developments in quantum mechanics. He takes the reader through the establishment of logical positivism/empiricism/falsifiability as theories, shows how they were linked to/supported the Copenhagen interpretation, but then shows how these theories have since been superseded in philosophy by a recognition that you cannot just limit yourself to testing empirical predictions but have to embed these tests in a broader theory of underlying reality. Becker is very critical of physicists who are still in a positivist mold which he views as being unaware of the last 50 years of developments in analytical philosophy.
Becker’s book leaves me partially convinced by his conclusion but only partially. He is convincing that the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong/incoherent but is less convincing about the utility of developing alternatives. The proliferation of so many alternatives, the inability to decide between them, and the lack of any large convincing progresss that came out their development leave me wondering whether their marginalization is a self-fulfilling prophecy or maybe inherent in their approach. That said, given uncertainty about where/how we will make scientific progress continuing along the path of better understanding the reality underlying the weirdness of quantum mechanics seems like a worthwhile activity for at least a small fraction of physicists—and Becker is completely convincing that outdated philosophy and internally inconsistent arguments should not be used to deter these investigations.
Unlike most histories of science, Adam Becker’s book in some ways is about failure and going badly off track not success. Specifically, the failure of physicists to think seriously about the origins and meanings of quantum mechanics, the marginalization of those who tried to, and the problems that come from physicists acting as amateur philosophers without being aware of major developments in philosophy (like realism overcoming logical positivism/empiricism).
Adam Becker borders on scathing on Bohr and the circle’s around him’s devleopment of what came to be called the “Copenhagen Interpretation” of quantum mechanics. The interpretation centered around probabilistic waves becoming deterministic particles when they are somehow measured by a measuring apparatus that is itself deterministic. In effect, they were assuming that classical mechanics applied to large objects but quantum mechanics to small ones. And more to the point, they were taking an attitude that has been described as “shut up and calculate.”
Becker has four arguments against the Copenhagen interpretation: (i) that it was actually a lot of different interpretations by a lot of different people and never actually a single interpretation; (ii) that all of these failed basic tests of logical consistency; (iii) that all of this was reinforced by Bohr’s charisma and his circle’s antagonism to challenging the intreptation; and (iv) that this is consequential because it inhibits the devlopment of new scientific questions and potential experiments.
Becker then develops some of the alternative interpretations at great length together with mini-biograophies and descriptions of the process of discovery, placing the most emphasis on Bohm’s deterministic pilot waves idea, Everett’s Many Worlds hypothesis and Bell’s inequality. He then rushes briefly through some other ideas towards the end of the book, including superdeterminism, and information theory.
The biographies he tells of these scientists—including Bohr’s exile to Brazil, Everett’s greater interest in drinking/womanizing than in physics, and Bell publishing in a random journal rather than a top one—is not just ancillary entertainment but a core part of the argument. Most science stories are about progress and triumph. This one is to some degree about contingency and chance and the ways it can lead science astray. Bohr’s charisma vs. the problems of the alternative messengers are treated as historical accidents that affected the ability to have a more full debate/research program on the foundations of quantum mechanics. When this was combined with incentives (e.g., all the funding for physics coming from the military) the effects were powerful.
One strength of Becker’s book is his serious intergration of analytic philosophy, his excellent explanations of it, and his relating this to developments in quantum mechanics. He takes the reader through the establishment of logical positivism/empiricism/falsifiability as theories, shows how they were linked to/supported the Copenhagen interpretation, but then shows how these theories have since been superseded in philosophy by a recognition that you cannot just limit yourself to testing empirical predictions but have to embed these tests in a broader theory of underlying reality. Becker is very critical of physicists who are still in a positivist mold which he views as being unaware of the last 50 years of developments in analytical philosophy.
Becker’s book leaves me partially convinced by his conclusion but only partially. He is convincing that the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong/incoherent but is less convincing about the utility of developing alternatives. The proliferation of so many alternatives, the inability to decide between them, and the lack of any large convincing progresss that came out their development leave me wondering whether their marginalization is a self-fulfilling prophecy or maybe inherent in their approach. That said, given uncertainty about where/how we will make scientific progress continuing along the path of better understanding the reality underlying the weirdness of quantum mechanics seems like a worthwhile activity for at least a small fraction of physicists—and Becker is completely convincing that outdated philosophy and internally inconsistent arguments should not be used to deter these investigations.