Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions),   ISBN:9780192802521

Customer Rating: 

This book is well written but does not focus on demystifying the quantum theory. It is difficult to figure out completely what quantum theory is all about. Apparently, quantum theory deals in probabilities rather than certainties. In the quantum world, it permits mixing together of states that classically would be mutually exclusive of each other. Quantum entities that have interacted with each other remain mutually entangled even though they may be separate. However, there are also some concepts that are confusing.

Customer Rating: 

This pocket-sized, 92-page text--113 pages with appendices and index--professes to be a "very short introduction" to an understanding of quantum theory, to the unseen world that's so many millions of times smaller than even atoms.

It's not at all a bad summary of the field of quantum mechanics, written fairly lucidly, concisely, and with interest, but I'd have to say it's lacking as an introduction to the subject, in that it really does assume its readers are intelligent people with something of a science background. Do not buy this expecting it to be QUANTUM THEORY FOR DUMMIES, because it's still fairly dense and heavy, and not written as clearly or as startlingly as much of Stephen Hawking's stuff. To some readers, this assumption of their intelligence may be refreshing, and it is to a degree, but with a subject as complex and bizarre as quantum mechanics, most non-scientists will need as much help as they can get, help not necessarily to be found in here.

I do have to say, though, that this is a book worth reading, and, then, re-reading. After I read it, I went back through and looked up a few of the more major concepts--quantum entanglement, in which two particles that interact will continue to affect each other no matter how far apart they're separated; Schrödinger's Cat and the idea of a state between life and death, between here and there, between being and non-being; Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and how you can't have a knowledge of both position and momentum of a particle; et cetera--and just that brief re-reading was a huge help to me.

The book will teach you a lot about the subject, and will give you a good start toward further educating your knowledge of this awesome and frustrating topic, this topic which has already done so much toward unlocking the secrets of our existence and our universe--and toward confusing everyone.

Its glossary is lacking, its author has a subtle but evident Christian bias, but overall it's a good little book, and I enjoyed it. I recommend it.

Customer Rating: 

In an introduction to a topic, one expects lots of figures to explain just about every topic. This book, and indeed the entire series, generally has rather few figures. The series also, generally, focuses on the historical development of the topic and not necessarily on the current understanding of the topic. Therefore, the series sacrifices a better explanation of our current understanding to explain who thought what and when. Nonetheless, this book serves adequately in the capacity of a "very short introduction."

Customer Rating: 

I'm thoroughly unimpressed by Rev. Polkinghorne's account of quantum physics. Even though he is technically competent, Polkinghorne seems to get every major interpretation wrong. For example, he thinks Bohr in error to consider free will and determinism complementary. But Bohr's colleague and Nobel Laureate Max Born did say that Bohr's complementarity applies precisely to this situation.

Right on page 1 Polkinghorne shows his tendency to misunderstand. Speaking of Laplace's conjecture, the physicist-turned-Anglican priest writes "In fact, this rather chilling mechanistic claim always had a strong suspicion of hubris about it. For one thing, human beings do not experience themselves as being clockwork automata...."

This is like accusing someone of arrogrance because he said "If I were the president of the United States I would eliminate poverty..." He did say "If," didn't he? Laplace always said this prediction of the future is only possible in principle, but impossible in practice. In fact, in making his "thought experiment" - not a factual "claim," as Polkinghorne thinks - he made two assumptions which he knew to be UNTRUE. First, that such an ideal intelligence exists. (When Napoleon asked him about the Creator after reading his theory of the solar system, Laplace gave this magnificent reply: "Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis.") And second, that this intelligence can analyse absolutely all data at once.

As for what humans "experience," the fact is that not even a frog feels like a clockwork automatum. But what we feel is irrelevant if our belief in free will is due to the unpredictability of our volition, and this unpredictability is due in to deterministic chaos, which leaves no room for free will at all, no matter how irregular we might feel. In fact, no machine can perfectly understand another machine of exactly the same level of complexity, even without chaos added to the difficulty. A machine may be able to understand another of lower level of complexity. The same goes for humans: We may always have difficult understanding ourselves although we may eventually understand simpler organisms. We humans have enough trouble understanding the nervous system of something as simple as a dog. What Polkinghorne should have asked is: What would be the effect of quantum mechanics on this "thought experiment" of Laplace? An honest answer would be: None. Indeed, Laplace did not need chaos or quantum uncertainty to know that his conjecture is no more than just a thought experiment, though a very worthwhile and instructive one.

Polkinghorne puts down other physicists (and auto mechanics in general) by saying "The average quantum mechanic is no more philosophical than the average auto mechanic." Born, however, said that theoretical physics IS actually philosophy. Bohr always said that there are important epistemological lessons to be drawn from the world of physics, especially elementary particle physics. It's as though Polkinghorne has been asleep through all the major developments of the past century. On the few occasions he is awake, he misunderstands and misrepresents. Polkinghorne himself may be no more philosophical than an auto mechanic (maybe even less so), but don't drag people like Schroedinger, Bohr, Born, Pauli, Heisenberg, Wheeler, Bell and Weinberg through the mud with such silly statements.

Customer Rating: 

This book does its best, but in the end suffers from something that I think is inherent in the material itself. I did learn a little more about quantum theory from this book, but not much more than I already knew to begin with. And this book didn't really make many of the main concepts any clearer. I don't think is the author's fault, I think it's almost impossible to try to explain these things. Most of the problem, (and similar statements go for cosmology, cryptography, etc.) is that it's almost impossible to explain concepts whose fundamental expression is mathematical language without using mathematics. What inevitably results is some kind of vague, touchy-feely idea of what's meant, but little understanding. And I say this as a mathematician.

To give just one example, at one point in the book, the author talks about "probability amplitudes", for several pages. The only problem is, he never says what this term is supposed to mean, but he does mention that complex numbers are involved, and other facts. The result after this happens several times is that the reader starts to read entire paragraphs consisting of terminology that's never been defined clearly. The word "operator" is the best example here. It's fine to talk ABOUT operators in indirect, oblique language, but really you don't have a true understanding of what that word means unless you know its precise mathematical definition, or unless you have a clear understanding of the notion of vector space (axiomatically, not "stuff you can add together"). I didn't have this kind of problem with most of the mathematical terminology, because I know it, but the problem comes with the physics -- the physics concepts are essentially mathematical, and trying to explain them without using mathematics is like trying to understand Shakespeare without being able to read English -- you can always give a vague, hazy account, but not much more.

The book is well-written (aside from an overly-biased presentation of the philosophical aspects), but I think it tries to have its cake and eat it too. It says it's free of mathematics, but this isn't really the case. The whole text is fully of talk about operators, vectors, vector spaces, equations, probability theory, and so on. It's the _symbolism_, not the math, that's missing (except for the appendix, which thoroughly confused me, mainly because terms were introduced without precise definition, and the notation was the physicist's notation, not mathematician's notation...)

This book was confusing to me, but the reason was because it had too LITTLE math, not too much.