Friday, April 17, 2009

John Polkinghorne's "Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction"


I was a bit disappointed in this book. I like the series of "very short introduction" books. They usually pick good authors -- Polkinghorne certain has the credentials -- who provide a text that is quite interesting and readable. This book didn't quite measure up.

The sections of the book that I very much liked were those that looked at interpretation of the theory, the history behind these viewpoints, and the presentation of alternatives.

Where I feel the book fell short was in presenting the quantum theory as physical description of the world. The math was bannished to an appendix. This was fine given that he presented the math in a perfunctory manner without the details required to make the material useful to a non-specialist. But that left only main body of the text to explain the theory. Here the material was too brief, too unmotived, too unillustrated to be useful to the general reader. The standard QT (Quantum Theory) ideas were present but not in a memorable, compelling, or insightful manner. I came away knowing nothing more about QT that before I read this book. (I did learn a bit of new material in the interpretation and philosophical sections, brief as they were.)

Polkinghorne is a recognized scientist specializing QT, so he knows his stuff. But after looking at his "further reading" section, I think I understand why the explanatory material fell flat. Apparantly he is not familiar with other writings on QT by popular science writers. Apparantly he is unaware or unexposed to writing styles that give the general reader a more compelling story, better techniques to make the concepts more approachable. The book didn't reward me for the reading since it didn't advance my understanding of QT.

4 comments:

Unknown said...

I would like to read on this subject; can you recommend a good author?

RYviewpoint said...

My readings are quite dated... going back 30 years. So I'm not really familiar with popular science from the last 10 years, but here goes...

From 1985, Nick Herbert wrote Quantum Reality that was very accessible and lots of fun and covers the conceptual stuff very well. I see it is still available on Amazon as a 1987 edition and has 4.5 stars.

From 1987, Tony Hey and Patrick Walters wrote The Quantum Universe. It is a great picture book with solid physics in it. It is more history and technology than theory, but it does cover the basics. I see that a 2003 edition is available on Amazon with 4 stars. (This is one of the 3 general books recommended by Polkinghorne.)

From 2003 is Jim Al-Khalili's Quantum:A Guide for the Purplexed. I find this too much of a picture book and too simplistic, but it gets 4.5 stars at Amazon. I prefer the Nick Herbert book for its focus on quantum theory, this is too much particle physics.

From 2004, Bruce A. Schumm's Deep Down Things covers modern particle physics with a healthy dose of quantum physics. This is a more serious physics book. Still geared for a "general" reader but one with some sophistication in science and math. I recommend you read one of the above books before you take on this book. It is 5 stars at Amazon. This is excellent physics but too much focus on particle physics and not enough on quantum theory. But if you read Nick Herbert's book and then this, you could pass as an solid amateur of quantum physics.

Hope that helps.

RYviewpoint said...

Thomas: I just realized that I should mention the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as an excellent source for understanding quantum theory without getting bogged down in the math. This material is for the serious student, so depending on what level you are at, it may be too advanced without studying some of the books mentioned in the previous post.

Here are some links:
Quantum MechanicsStart there, then at the end of the article you will find "Related Entries" which will lead you to other articles. These are written by professional philosophers, so the quality is excellent.

For me, the heart of quantum mechanics is the two-slit experiment. Here is an article that reviews interpretations of it.

Unknown said...

I really appreciate the suggestions, and I will be out trying to find some of those books, but in the meantime, with all of the reading there is on your site; I will in my spare time go to the links you have pointed out. Thanks for replying