Quantum Theory, A Very Short Introduction

Rating:
Summary: Not short enough
Review: I'm thoroughly unimpressed by Rev. Polkinghorne's interpretation of quantum physics. Even though he is technically competent, Polkinghorne seens to get every major point wrong. For example, he thinks Bohr in error to consider free will and determinism complementary. I'm not sure Bohr said that, but Bohr's colleague and Nobel Laureate Max Born did say that Bohr's complementarity applies to this situation.

Polkinghorne puts down other physicists 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 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. Polkinghorne himself may be no more philosophical than an auto mechanic, but don't drag people like Schroedinger, Wheeler and Weinberg through the mud with such silly statements.

Rating:
Summary: Not short enough
Review: I'm thoroughly unimpressed by Rev. Polkinghorne's interpretation of quantum physics. Even though he is technically competent, Polkinghorne seens to get every major point wrong. For example, he thinks Bohr in error to consider free will and determinism complementary. I'm not sure Bohr said that, but Bohr's colleague and Nobel Laureate Max Born did say that Bohr's complementarity applies to this situation.

Polkinghorne puts down other physicists 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 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. Polkinghorne himself may be no more philosophical than an auto mechanic, but don't drag people like Schroedinger, Wheeler and Weinberg through the mud with such silly statements.

Rating:
Summary: Profound, Concise, Scholarly, Accessible and "Real"
Review: There is nothing more beautiful to me than a profound, concise, respectable and rigorous small book. The gift of knowledge and time such a book provides matches any beauty that I've encountered. "Quantum Theory, A Very Short Introduction" delivers such a gift.

Looking at the small book, and my current desire to understand the essence of the mystery of Quantum physics, I had a strange desire starting the book- I wanted it to hurt a little bit. That is to say, I wanted it to be challenging enough to reach a profound depth and truth that matched my desire to know. And I wanted it to be real- not a fanciful tour of "cool stuff" but a book so steeped in knowledge that it exposes the diamond at the center of this leviathan. I wanted to be challenged, and maybe read a page two or three times to capture the occasional key point. I wanted a book by an author so knowledgeable that he would be brave enought to tackle this goal in a 100 page book. In other words, I wanted the truth, I wanted it quickly, and, as a result, I expected to sweat. I wasn't dissapointed.

And the really exciting thing is that this book is part of an Oxford University Press series of "Very Short Introductions". The format of the books in this series is about 100 pages, in a small paperback size. The text is fairly small, with small margins, with maybe 300 words per page. That makes each books about 30 000 words, plus of minus 25% for pictures, paragraph size and so on. And the books are written by experts with a professional level of rigor. The are a very short, deep, and real introductions. They make you sweat a little.

I can't wait to read the other 86 volumes currently in publication or slated to be published soon. My hope is roughly one a week- my wallet in my right pocket, and one of these in my left. That should keep me happy for the next 20 months- a gentle buzz of learning that soars over the far reaches of human experience and thought...

Rating:
Summary: As best as can be expected, I guess
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Very short, but not all that lucid
Review: This is a short book, and that is its only advantage, unfortunately.

Granted, that the author is eminent in this field and was himself a student of the great Paul Dirac. However, this book does not sit easily in a series designed to make a subject approachable to the novice. It has far too much esoteric maths than is good for a book of this genre. An ever stronger criticism is the fact that instead of keeping to basic physics ideas such as the double slit experiment (which this book does well!) and then developing the ideas of atomic structure, and the uncertainty principle, it dwells on things like operators and such like.

If you want a good introduction to Quantum Theory, look no further than the books by George Gamow's "The New World of Mr Tompkins" or "Mr Tomkins in paperback", or, "Uncle Albert and the Quantum Quest".