What do you think?
Rate this book
مبدأ الريبة : أينشتين ، هازينبرج ، بور والصراع من أجل روح العلم
قصة نشؤ نظرية "ميكانيكا الكم"، طرق وأساليب العلماء النظرية والتجريبية وكذلك الشخصية في صياغة هذه النظرية. صراع مبدأ الحتمية (السببية) مع مبدأ الريبة (اللايقين) ومحاولة فهم كيف تفكر الجسيمات ومطاردتها. حتى انتهى الأمر بصياغة مبدأ الريبة: (تقيس سرعة الجسيم أو قد تستطيع أن تقيس موضعه غير أنك لا تستطيع أن تنجز المهمتين معاً).
----------------
ميكانيكا الكم: انقسم العلماء في تفسيراتهم إلى أسلوبين الأول ميكانيكا الموجات (طبيعة موجية) في زيورخ والثاني ميكانيكا المصفوفات (معادلات رياضية) في جوتنجن، وهناك أصوات إخرى من كوبنهاجن وكامبريدج. بورن وجوردن وهايزنبرغ قدموا حلولاً رياضية أما شرودنجر ولو دي بروجلي قدما حلاً موجياً.و اشترك بالفريقين نيلز بور وماكس بلانك وأينشتاين وبول ديراك وكرامر وبولي وسمرفيلد مع الكثير من المبادئ الفيزيائية والرياضية.
----------------
الجيد بالكتاب أنه يعطي فكرى عن كيفية ولادة وتجمّع الأفكار العلمية، علم المطيافية، الأعداد الكمومية، قانون الديناميكا الحرارية (الأنتروبيا)، الحركة البراونية، السببية، الاحتمال الرياضي، علم الفيزياء الذرية، النظرية الموجية في المجال الكهرومغناطيسي، الإشعاع الذري، النسبية........ لكن ما يعيبه أسلوبه السردي و خاصة في قسم "روح النسق القديم".
تحميل الكتاب :
http://www.4shared.com/office/E9A0MpO...
----------------
ميكانيكا الكم: انقسم العلماء في تفسيراتهم إلى أسلوبين الأول ميكانيكا الموجات (طبيعة موجية) في زيورخ والثاني ميكانيكا المصفوفات (معادلات رياضية) في جوتنجن، وهناك أصوات إخرى من كوبنهاجن وكامبريدج. بورن وجوردن وهايزنبرغ قدموا حلولاً رياضية أما شرودنجر ولو دي بروجلي قدما حلاً موجياً.و اشترك بالفريقين نيلز بور وماكس بلانك وأينشتاين وبول ديراك وكرامر وبولي وسمرفيلد مع الكثير من المبادئ الفيزيائية والرياضية.
----------------
الجيد بالكتاب أنه يعطي فكرى عن كيفية ولادة وتجمّع الأفكار العلمية، علم المطيافية، الأعداد الكمومية، قانون الديناميكا الحرارية (الأنتروبيا)، الحركة البراونية، السببية، الاحتمال الرياضي، علم الفيزياء الذرية، النظرية الموجية في المجال الكهرومغناطيسي، الإشعاع الذري، النسبية........ لكن ما يعيبه أسلوبه السردي و خاصة في قسم "روح النسق القديم".
تحميل الكتاب :
http://www.4shared.com/office/E9A0MpO...
315 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
129 people are currently reading
3,528 people want to read
About the author
David Lindley
42books39followersDavid Lindley is a theoretical physicist and author. He holds a B.A. in theoretical physics from Cambridge University and a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Sussex. Then he was a postdoctoral researcher at Cambridge University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 158 reviews
March 16, 2016
عنوان الكتاب: مبدأ اللايقين - آينشتاين، هايزينبيرج، بور، والصراع من أجل روح العلم
الكاتب: ديفيد ليندلي
عدد الصفحات: ٢٧٢ - سبع ساعات ككتاب مسموع
التقييم: خمس نجوم
عندما قررت قراءة هذا الكتاب كان قراري مبنيًا بدرجة أساسية على عنوانه الجذاب الذي وقعت عليه صدفةً أثناء بحثي عن كتاب آخر. لم يخيّب الكتاب ظني، بل من الأدق أن أقول أنه فاق كل توقعاتي لدرجة أنه سلبني لذيذ النوم، فلم أنم ليلة البارحة إلا ساعةً واحدة!
كما هو واضح في العنوان فالكتاب يتناول موضوع مبدأ اللايقين وهو مبدأ فيزيائي ظهر في العام ١٩٢٧ على يد كل من نيلز بور وويرنر هايزينبيرج. هذا المبدأ يعد من أكثر الأمور المحيّرة في الفيزياء وهو ما يجعل ميكانيكا الكم مختلفة جدًا وبشكل جذري عن الميكانيكا الكلاسيكية التي نمارسها في حياتنا اليومية والتي كانت سائدة في الأوساط العلمية حتى ذلك الحين. يقول نيلز بور في عبارة شهيرة له: "إذا لم تصدمك ميكانيكا الكم بشكل عميق جدًا، فإنك لم تفهمها بعد". ويقول آينشتاين الذي رفض بشكل قاطق قبول مبدأ اللايقين: "إن الله لا يلعب بالنرد".
فما هو هذا المبدأ الذي أثبتته التجارب بشكل منقطع النظير وكفر به آينشتاين الذي يعتبره الكثيرون أذكى عالم في التاريخ وربما أكبر عبقري في الجنس البشري. أليس هذا لوحده دافعًا كافيًا لقراءة هذا الكتاب؟
يبدع الكاتب في تقسيمه للكتاب وفي طريقة التقديم، فهو يمزج بين العلم والتاريخ والسيرة الذاتية ويحبس الأنفاس حتى آخر ورقة كأنه رواية غاية في التشويق لا كتاب علمي! أما المحتوى فهو من أروع ما كان، حيث أنني وبعد قراءة ما يزيد على خمسة عشر كتاب حول الفيزياء هذه السنة أحسست بالتشبع من هذا الموضوع خاصةً وأن كثيرًا من النقاط تتكرر في عديد من الكتب، وهنا يظهر إبداع الكاتب، فكان محتواه أصليًا غير متكرر وأوضح جوانبًا لم يغطها أيٌ من تلك الكتب. المحتوى سهل الفهم للقارئ غير المتخصص ولكنه لا يصل لمرحلة السطحية بل يحافظ على درجة جيدة من التوازن.
بعد مقدمة المثيرة، يسبر الكاتب تاريخ الحتمية واللاحتمية في العلم، فنجد العالم الفرنسي الماركي دي لابلاس في بداية القرن التاسع عشر يؤكد على الحتمية بقوله أن أي شخص عبقري يستطيع معرفة الماضي والمستقبل بشكل تام إذا تمكن من الإحاطة بجميع عناصر الحاضر حيث أن قوانين الطبيعة ستقود بشكل حتمي إلى نتائج معينة يمكننا التنبؤ بها ومعرفتها بشكل مطلق. بعد ذلك مع وصف العالم النمساوي لودفغ بولتزمان للانتروبيا ومبدأ تزايد الفوضى تبدأ التوقعات الاحصائية بالحلول مكان هذه الحتمية حيث يقوم آينشتاين نفسه في سنته المعجزة ١٩٠٥ بنشر ورقة علمية تصف هذه الطبيعة الاحصائية. ولكن هذا الأمر لا يزعج آينشتاين كثيرًا فحتى ومع غياب إمكانية قياس سرعة وموقع كل ذرة إلا أنه من حيث المبدأ يمكن التنبؤ بشكل دقيق بما سيحدث إذا أحطنا بكافة المعلومات.
بعد التحقق من نظرية آينشتاين حول نظام الحركة البراونية (وهو الإسم الذي أطلق على حركة الذرات الغريبة في السوائل والغازات) دخل العلم عصر الذرة وهنا بدأت المشاكل الحقيقية بالظهور. يسرد الكاتب تاريخ اكتشاف النشاط الإشعاعي والالكترون والبروتون ووضع نموذج راذرفورد الذري وهو الصورة النمطية المنتشرة لدى غالبية الناس حول شكل الذرة. يأتي بعد ذلك العالم الدنماركي نيلز بور والذي يُدخل مبدأ التكميم في الذرة، هذا المبدأ الذي جاء به العالم الألماني ماكس بلانك في موضوع مختلف تمامًا وطوره بعد ذلك آينشتاين، ولكن كليهما سرعانما أبديا انزعاجهما وخوفهما من هذا التطبيق.
تبدأ الآن مرحلة الثورة الكمومية فنلتقي بالشاب الأماني الخجول ويرنر هايزينبيرج وصديقه وولفجانج باولي وآخرين. هذا هو أكثر أجزاء الكتاب تشويقًا حيث تظهر الاكتشافات العلمية والصراعات والنقاشات المحتدمة بين العلماء للوصول إلى النظرية الكمومية. هنا تتعرف على لمحات عميقة من هذه الفترة التاريخية وكيف كان يفكر هؤلاء العباقرة ويتصرفون وما هي طبيعة شخصياتهم. تظهر إنسانيتهم بشكل جلي، فكبقية البشر توثر فيهم الحرب ويعيشون ظروف قاسية من الجوع وبعضهم يموت في المعركة.
وأخيرًا في العام ١٩٢٧ يتفق كل من بور وهايزينبيرج على تفسير موحد للميكانيكا الكمية (يسمى تفسير كوبيهاجين) ومبدأ اللايقين. في الحقيقة فإن الإسم الأدق لمبدأ اللايقين والذي يترجم أحيانًا مبدأ الريبة هو مبدأ اللاحتمية فهو ينص على عدم إمكانية التوقع الحتمي لسرعة ومكان الأجسام تحت الذرية كالالكترون بل يعطي احتماليات لذلك فقط. حتى وإن حاولنا الحصول على أكبر دقة ممكنة فإن فعل القياس في حد ذاته يقلل من الدقة فإما أن نحصل على السرعة أو المكان بشكل دقيق ولكن ليس كليهما. أي أن سبب عدم الدقة ليس هو عدم وجود قياسات دقيقة، بل بسبب وجود طبيعة احتمالية مبنية في الطبيعة ذاتها تمنع الوصول للدقة الكاملة في التوقع
يزعج هذا الأمر آينشتاين وعدد آخر من العلماء، ويقوم آينشتاين بمواجهات عديدة مع بور لتحدي هذا المبدأ الذي يرى فيه تحديدًا لقدرة العلم فمن ينتصر في تحدي العباقرة يا ترى؟ أنه الصراع من أجل روح العلم.
يختم الكاتب كتابه بتناول مستقبل ميكانيكا الكم والنتائج الفلسفية والمجتمعية المترتبة عليها.
إنه كتاب يستحق القراءة حقًا. وأخطط لقراءة كتب أخرى لنفس الكاتب.
July 14, 2011
I read this book as if I was watching a movie in my head. This book has little to do with the complex formula of Quantum Mechanics but everything to do about the complex characters that created the concepts that led to Quantum Mechanics.
I was slightly amused to finish the book and feel I had a better understanding of how Quantum Mechanics came about but now i was more lost than ever as to the people that made it so. Its a lot to wrap your head around when your continually blown away how people achieved such successes considering the challenges of living between WWI, WWII and the rise and fall of Nazi Germany as well as the dynamics of 19th century and 20th century ideologies conflicting with each other.
I will definitely re-read again, perhaps after reading more in depth biographies on Einstein, Heisenberg & Bohr so I can understand their complex dynamics and personalities better.
I was slightly amused to finish the book and feel I had a better understanding of how Quantum Mechanics came about but now i was more lost than ever as to the people that made it so. Its a lot to wrap your head around when your continually blown away how people achieved such successes considering the challenges of living between WWI, WWII and the rise and fall of Nazi Germany as well as the dynamics of 19th century and 20th century ideologies conflicting with each other.
I will definitely re-read again, perhaps after reading more in depth biographies on Einstein, Heisenberg & Bohr so I can understand their complex dynamics and personalities better.
November 4, 2011
لم يسبق لي أن قرأت أو سمعت عن كتاب لتاريخ العلم و العلماء, والصورة النمطية المرسومة في ذهني للعلم و التي تكونت نتيجة أسلوب التدريس العقيم في المدرسة و الجامعة توحي بأن العالم عبارة عن شيء شبيه بمسخ غير إنساني يقضي وقته كله في البحث و التجريب و أن العالم هو عالم فقط يتحول لشخص عادي أو أقل من عادي حالما يخرج خارج وسطه المفضل, هذا الكتاب و بأسلوبه المشوق و السلس يعطي فكرة -و إن كانت غير واضحة تماما- عن حياة العلماء و كيف أن العنصر الإنساني من شغف و صراع و نضال كان حاسما في تكون العلم الذي بين أيدينا
يعاب على الكتاب أنه و بعكس ما يوحي الإسم لم يعطي مبدأ ريبة هايزنبرغ مساحة كافية من التفصيل و الشرح , لكن هو يجعلك راغب في فهم المبدأ بصورة أكبر فيجعلك تذهب للبحث في الموضوع أكثر و أكثر
يحكي الكتاب عموما قصة ظهور علم مكانيكا الكم بكل المسببات و الجدل و الإشكالات التي رافقت تكونه, أبطال القصة هم نيلز بور مكتشف العلم إن صح التعبير و أينشتاين الذي وقف ضد فكرة أن العلم الجديد لن يكون خاضعا لقوانين الفيزياء الكلاسيكية , و هايزنبرغ الذي وضع و هو في ريعان شبابه مبدأ الريبة الذي يقول بأن أسس الفيزياء الكلاسيكية ليست صالحة لتفسير مبكانيكا الذرات لأنها و ببساطة ليست صحيحة أساسا!
October 14, 2020
This book is a history of the development of the uncertainty principle (a.k.a. Heisenberg principle). It explains the interaction of Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr (as well as the contributions of many others) in the development of this principle. The book makes the history clear, but I'm still trying to get my mind around the principle. The principle applies to atomic and subatomic particles, and basically says that it's impossible to know location and velocity (or momentum) at the same time.
It's not saying this as a limit of human intelligence or understanding nor as a statement on the limitation of current measuring technology. It's saying that at a fundamental theoretical level if a mathematical wave/quantum model is developed that targets a particle's location that an infinite number of possible velocities (or momentums) result, and that if the model zeros in on velocity (or momentum) an infinite number of locations become possible. The principle is saying that it's impossible to escape from this dilemma.
I want to make it clear here that we're not talking about the difficulty in measuring the length of something because the end of the measuring stick bumps into the object being measured (that's the level of my thinking). We're talking about particles at the atomic and subatomic level and their tendency to show wave characteristics and quantum levels of energy. Particles at this level do not behave like objects in our day-to-day world of Newtonian physics. The subatomic world seems to have its own rules which defy logic (i.e. Newtonian logic).
I don't feel too lonely in my confusion with regard to the uncertainty principle because Einstein insisted to his dying day that the uncertainty principle can't be the end to further understanding of the subject of elementary particles. I find it ironic that Einstein as a young man upset the scientific world with his theories of relativity, but as an old man refused to be budged by the new quantum mechanics.
The following quotation shows how Bohr and his new quantum mechanics was moving away from classical physics:
It's not saying this as a limit of human intelligence or understanding nor as a statement on the limitation of current measuring technology. It's saying that at a fundamental theoretical level if a mathematical wave/quantum model is developed that targets a particle's location that an infinite number of possible velocities (or momentums) result, and that if the model zeros in on velocity (or momentum) an infinite number of locations become possible. The principle is saying that it's impossible to escape from this dilemma.
I want to make it clear here that we're not talking about the difficulty in measuring the length of something because the end of the measuring stick bumps into the object being measured (that's the level of my thinking). We're talking about particles at the atomic and subatomic level and their tendency to show wave characteristics and quantum levels of energy. Particles at this level do not behave like objects in our day-to-day world of Newtonian physics. The subatomic world seems to have its own rules which defy logic (i.e. Newtonian logic).
I don't feel too lonely in my confusion with regard to the uncertainty principle because Einstein insisted to his dying day that the uncertainty principle can't be the end to further understanding of the subject of elementary particles. I find it ironic that Einstein as a young man upset the scientific world with his theories of relativity, but as an old man refused to be budged by the new quantum mechanics.
The following quotation shows how Bohr and his new quantum mechanics was moving away from classical physics:
"…Bohr issued a paper calling for a new system of quantum mechanics, the first appearance of that term, a structure of quantum rules obeying their own logic and not necessarily following the time honored rules of classical Newtonian mechanics. …� The language of classical physics is the differential calculus devised by Newton and independently by Leibniz to deal with continuous variations and incremental change. But in trying to understand the workings of atoms physicists came up against phenomena that were abrupt spontaneous and discontinuous. First it was in one state and then in another. There was no smooth passage between the two. Traditional calculus could not cope with such discontinuities. So Bohr, making a virtue of necessity, proposed instead to substitute a calculus of differences, a mathematical system that would take for its basic elements the differences between states rather than the states themselves.The following quotation describes the moment of Heisenberg's epiphany:
This, Heisenberg could see, bore some relation to what Kramers was doing with his virtual oscillators. Both approaches brought the transitions to center stage and pushed the underlying states into the wings. Digesting these ideas Heisenberg came up with an ingenious argument that justified theoretically one of the peculiar half-quantum formulas he and Landè had divined imperially some time ago. " (p107-8)
"Beginning with some quantum system of particles, for example, you could work out a classical picture in which the positions of the particles are the primary elements, or you could instead choose to speak in terms of particle velocities, or rather in terms of momentum (mass x velocity) which to physicists is the more fundamental quantity. Strangely though, these position and momentum portraits didn't match up as they should if they were simply alternative portrayals of a single underlying system. It was as if the position based account and the momentum based account were somehow depicting two different quantum systems not the same one in different ways. ... That was the conundrum that Heisenberg wrestled with. How could he find a way to force quantum mechanics to give up its secrets to let him see what was going on inside? He couldn't! That was the answer that flashed into his mind that evening ... " (p145)Near the end of the book there is a discussion of the enthusiasm with which philosophers, theologians, and other fields of the humanities have claimed the uncertainty principle for their own fields of study. Of course these are at best metaphoric comparisons which may shed a bit of the cache of modern science onto their areas of study.
August 24, 2012
تحدث " مبدأ الريبة " عن لايقينة العلم و سيّر علماء الفيزياء النظرية في ألمانيا - خاصة - وصراعهم المحموم لإثبات ميكانكا الكم بطريقة حتمية .. رغم ما أثبتته لهم التجارب من عشوائية و فوضى الإلكترونات . فلقد كان السؤال الأكثر إلحاحاً و الأكثر جدلاً حين ذاك هو : عن من الذي يجعل الإلكترون يقرر خطوته التالية .. ما الذي يجعله يقفز و يدور و يتفاعل و يتحرك ؟ ما السبب الذي يدفعه لذلك ، لماذا لا يخضع هذا الشيء الصغير لقوانيبن الطبيعة المتعارف عليها ، لم يصر على معاندتنا و يثير الحيرة في نفوسنا؟ كنت متحمسة لأعرف أكثر عن ما سيتؤوله إليه التجارب ، لكن يبدو أنه لم يخلص أي من العلماء حينها إلى أي جواب و إكتفوا بإعلان أننا يجب أن نسلم بلاحتمية العلم و الكون وعدم قدرتنا على التنبؤ بخطوته التالية بأي شكل من الأشكال ، و بأي معادلة أياً كانت .
كان ممتعاً لأنه كُتب بطريقة أدبية جذابة .. إلا أن حشوه بين الحين و الحين بشرح مستفيض للنظريات جعلني أصاب بالدوار أحياناً
كان ممتعاً لأنه كُتب بطريقة أدبية جذابة .. إلا أن حشوه بين الحين و الحين بشرح مستفيض للنظريات جعلني أصاب بالدوار أحياناً
August 14, 2017
This seems like a well-researched and well-written book about the rise of quantum mechanics, and in particular how it caused a revolution in scientific thinking. Although statistical methods had been devised and used before quantum mechanics, they had been considered a tool for getting at the underlying causality, but not meaningful in themselves. It became clear through quantum mechanic research that relying on statistics and probabilities was not just a tool, but that these were (are) basic concepts needed to describe the laws of nature. Apparently this was very difficult for scientists like Einstein and Schroedinger to accept, as it forced them to give up the idea of a deterministic world where everything is explainable if you just have the right tools.
It was interesting to read about how much these men struggled with the philosophical implications that came with abandoning a deterministic view of nature. As an empirical researcher working today, I completely take for granted that nothing can be predicted except using probability and statistics, but at the time it was a revolutionary and controversial idea.
The author also pointed out that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has been commandeered by everyone, including the popular media, despite the fact that the metaphor is hardly ever appropriate. For example, instead of just saying "watching people changes the way they act", tv characters mention Heisenberg and the uncertainty principle by name every chance they get. It's as if connecting this common sense idea to the famous physicist somehow gives it a deeper meaning, which is of course nonsense.
One thing I disagree with was Lindley's portrayal of Einstein as a self-proclaimed religious prophet and guru. I think that the author's translations of some of Einsteins quotes were not correct, and this led to confusion. For example, he claims that Einstein constantly spoke about "the old one" in letters to colleagues, referring to god. However the German translation should be more like "the old man" or "the old guy", which has a much less mystical, less serious tone. I personally think that Einstein knew that his colleagues were not religious men, and they wouldn't really take his religious views seriously. He may have been trying to express his opinions without sounding sounding preachy, which is exactly the opposite of what the author claims. I could be wrong though.
Generally it is a good book for interested lay people, and I recommend it. However, it is not an easy read even if you're used to dense, informative writing styles, so if you're looking for an exciting read or a page-turner, this is probably the wrong one.
Later Edit:
I looked more into Einstein's religious views, and it turns out that he openly, publicly, and repeatedly denied that he believed in a personal god, and characterized himself as agnostic. This is so contrary to how Lindley portrayed him that the book loses a lot of credibility.
It was interesting to read about how much these men struggled with the philosophical implications that came with abandoning a deterministic view of nature. As an empirical researcher working today, I completely take for granted that nothing can be predicted except using probability and statistics, but at the time it was a revolutionary and controversial idea.
The author also pointed out that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has been commandeered by everyone, including the popular media, despite the fact that the metaphor is hardly ever appropriate. For example, instead of just saying "watching people changes the way they act", tv characters mention Heisenberg and the uncertainty principle by name every chance they get. It's as if connecting this common sense idea to the famous physicist somehow gives it a deeper meaning, which is of course nonsense.
One thing I disagree with was Lindley's portrayal of Einstein as a self-proclaimed religious prophet and guru. I think that the author's translations of some of Einsteins quotes were not correct, and this led to confusion. For example, he claims that Einstein constantly spoke about "the old one" in letters to colleagues, referring to god. However the German translation should be more like "the old man" or "the old guy", which has a much less mystical, less serious tone. I personally think that Einstein knew that his colleagues were not religious men, and they wouldn't really take his religious views seriously. He may have been trying to express his opinions without sounding sounding preachy, which is exactly the opposite of what the author claims. I could be wrong though.
Generally it is a good book for interested lay people, and I recommend it. However, it is not an easy read even if you're used to dense, informative writing styles, so if you're looking for an exciting read or a page-turner, this is probably the wrong one.
Later Edit:
I looked more into Einstein's religious views, and it turns out that he openly, publicly, and repeatedly denied that he believed in a personal god, and characterized himself as agnostic. This is so contrary to how Lindley portrayed him that the book loses a lot of credibility.
December 20, 2019
Albert Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrödinger, Planck, Rutherford, De Broglie, Dirac, Chadwick, Yukawa...
"Nobis natus, nobis datus"
It was unintentionally to write review on Pi day that is AE's Birthday as well! But, I like this coincidence.
Back to review!
It was disturbing experience when first time encountered "uncertainty"! In my read I understood that our possibilities to acquire full knowledge about the world that is surrounding us on it's macro and micro scale are very limited! We can't know everything ever! That' was disappointing! It was already disappointing that we are sentenced to be a Johnny-late-comings with inherited total amnesia about who we are, why we came and where from, knowing nothing about the world, but to be limited to gain total knowledge against all our efforts, diligence - well, that's just unfair! If we look into a far distance, if you gaze way stars, the vast distances are the limit to see what is it at the "end" on the other side! if take a look into micro, there is the limit that appears too, where we, poor creatures are losing sight, becoming blind at the 10 on -6 power! This book is about people with immense curiosity and power of imagination who never accepted the fact that we can't found out everything, although they knew after all that "uncertainty" is a fact that we can't deny.
While considered the number of stars to rate the book, and when pressed on 5, well, that was not because there is nothing that couldn't be performed better, or that I didn't wish to have some more concise style with much stunning language precision! What I rated was the excellent idea to we have an available book for those novices who would like to learn about quantum mechanics not on classical "dry" scientific way, but would like to experience the journey of those involved, scientists, fathers of modern quantum theory, to gain knowledge about the global idea arousal, and in same time to have a sense and picture of the space and time, economic and political conditions these brilliant minds were gradually, slowly started to enter the quantum fog with their powerful mental powers, as well.
The purpose, the final goal to lead the non-scientist reader from Brownian motion until the modern quantum theory through the crazy political and war conditions, on easy to grasp way, the author, Mr, Lindley fulfilled with excellence and achieved with the possible highest success. He did it according to the principle that Cleobulus called: "Pan metron ariston" (All things in good measure)! Enough science with enough history! All in balance!
For those having intent to embark on "Uncertainty.." and with no or just brief knowledge about particle physics, please note that Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr are just a few named on title, you'll meet Planck, Schrödinger, Rutherford, De Broglie, Dirac, Chadwick and a lot more perhaps you never heard about before. All these scientists have dealt with a world we call micro and beyond! To scale imagine the magnitude of millimeter that we represent with 10 with power of minus 3 (10-3)! The smallest magnitude of space we can hear not so often is a micron - the micron is 10 with power of -6! Then, if we leap down on smaller scale, the smallest that human beings are able to manipulate is a nano scale - the nano is 10 with -9!!! The nano is a final frontier! If jump only one 0 down, on scale 10 with -10 we've arrived on atomic scale! The invisible, extremely hard to grasp world of force, energy, mater that is still in space and time behaving very strangely -bouncing, jumping particles or energy waves, particles that decay, radiate, the wave-particle duality that made scientist crazy and so on! These passionate titans spent decades in their micro worlds trying to figure out how the micro mechanics works only with their mental abilities!
Exciting, interesting read, full of knowledge! Thank you!
"Nobis natus, nobis datus"
It was unintentionally to write review on Pi day that is AE's Birthday as well! But, I like this coincidence.
Back to review!
It was disturbing experience when first time encountered "uncertainty"! In my read I understood that our possibilities to acquire full knowledge about the world that is surrounding us on it's macro and micro scale are very limited! We can't know everything ever! That' was disappointing! It was already disappointing that we are sentenced to be a Johnny-late-comings with inherited total amnesia about who we are, why we came and where from, knowing nothing about the world, but to be limited to gain total knowledge against all our efforts, diligence - well, that's just unfair! If we look into a far distance, if you gaze way stars, the vast distances are the limit to see what is it at the "end" on the other side! if take a look into micro, there is the limit that appears too, where we, poor creatures are losing sight, becoming blind at the 10 on -6 power! This book is about people with immense curiosity and power of imagination who never accepted the fact that we can't found out everything, although they knew after all that "uncertainty" is a fact that we can't deny.
While considered the number of stars to rate the book, and when pressed on 5, well, that was not because there is nothing that couldn't be performed better, or that I didn't wish to have some more concise style with much stunning language precision! What I rated was the excellent idea to we have an available book for those novices who would like to learn about quantum mechanics not on classical "dry" scientific way, but would like to experience the journey of those involved, scientists, fathers of modern quantum theory, to gain knowledge about the global idea arousal, and in same time to have a sense and picture of the space and time, economic and political conditions these brilliant minds were gradually, slowly started to enter the quantum fog with their powerful mental powers, as well.
The purpose, the final goal to lead the non-scientist reader from Brownian motion until the modern quantum theory through the crazy political and war conditions, on easy to grasp way, the author, Mr, Lindley fulfilled with excellence and achieved with the possible highest success. He did it according to the principle that Cleobulus called: "Pan metron ariston" (All things in good measure)! Enough science with enough history! All in balance!
For those having intent to embark on "Uncertainty.." and with no or just brief knowledge about particle physics, please note that Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr are just a few named on title, you'll meet Planck, Schrödinger, Rutherford, De Broglie, Dirac, Chadwick and a lot more perhaps you never heard about before. All these scientists have dealt with a world we call micro and beyond! To scale imagine the magnitude of millimeter that we represent with 10 with power of minus 3 (10-3)! The smallest magnitude of space we can hear not so often is a micron - the micron is 10 with power of -6! Then, if we leap down on smaller scale, the smallest that human beings are able to manipulate is a nano scale - the nano is 10 with -9!!! The nano is a final frontier! If jump only one 0 down, on scale 10 with -10 we've arrived on atomic scale! The invisible, extremely hard to grasp world of force, energy, mater that is still in space and time behaving very strangely -bouncing, jumping particles or energy waves, particles that decay, radiate, the wave-particle duality that made scientist crazy and so on! These passionate titans spent decades in their micro worlds trying to figure out how the micro mechanics works only with their mental abilities!
Exciting, interesting read, full of knowledge! Thank you!
October 12, 2023
حُق لآينشتاين أن يخشى هذه النتيجة!
Determinism was the linchpin of classical physics, the crucial principle of causality. Born was now putting into words Einstein’s greatest fear, one he had expressed repeatedly for years. In classical physics, when anything happens, it happens for a reason, because prior events led up to it, set the conditions for it, made it inevitable. But in quantum mechanics, apparently, things just happen one way or another, and there is no saying why.
March 4, 2013
استفدت منه في معرفة كواليس الاكتشافات والنظريات العلمية في مجال ميكانيكا الكم .. والقليل عن سير العلماء المؤثرين في هذا المجال ..
لكن على المستوى العلمي لم أستفد الكثير .. لبساطة الكتاب وصعوبته في الوقت ذاته !!
بساطته في التطرق للأفكار هذا المجال .. وصعوبته في الألفاظ الصعبة والمبهمة بالنسبة لي .. لم أفهم الكثير منها ..
ربما للترجمة دور في ذلك ..
لكن على المستوى العلمي لم أستفد الكثير .. لبساطة الكتاب وصعوبته في الوقت ذاته !!
بساطته في التطرق للأفكار هذا المجال .. وصعوبته في الألفاظ الصعبة والمبهمة بالنسبة لي .. لم أفهم الكثير منها ..
ربما للترجمة دور في ذلك ..
May 22, 2011
A good history of the pioneering of QM, focusing on Heisenberg and uncertainty in particular.
February 26, 2022
This an elegantly written and concise history of the origin and development of quantum theory, with particular emphasis on what the author considers its main flight from classical physics, namely the introduction of non-epistemic stochasticity and of causal events. Starting with a recollection of the introduction of epistemic stochasticity with the kinetic theory of gases and the discovery of radioactive decays, the author goes through old quantum theory and then focuses on the ramification of Bohr's hybrid atomic picture into what indeed became quantum mechanics and the so-called Copenhagen interpretation. The lineage from Bohr is clearly described, and the text is equally about the scientific ideas and leaps as about the historical contingencies and its human aspects (though not much indulging in so-called sociology of science, which is actually mentioned non-approvingly in the last chapter with the example of the hypothesis of Paul Forman on the alleged impact of Germany's socio-political climate on the emergence of uncertainty in physics). Bohr approaches the atom first through JJ Thomson (who proposed the pudding picture) and then through Rutherford, and produces his half-classical orbital model of the atom from indirect influence of the idea of quantization that was in the air from Plank and Einstein's works. His work is developed mathematically by Sommerfeld in Munich, who in turn will have Pauli and Heisenberg as pupils. Heisenberg makes the crucial leap by refusing to interpret the atom in terms of positions and velocities of electrons but rather in terms of observables, namely the radiation spectrum (amplitude and frequencies of the spectra of atoms). He devises a non-commutative calculus that Born in Gottingen recognizes to be matrix algebra. Born, Heisenberg and Jordan detail matrix mechanics, while in Zurich Schroedinger takes seriously De Broglie's hypothesis of matter waves and develops wave mechanics in the attempt to remove quantum leaps from the theory, and later proves that it is equivalent to matrix mechanics. Heisenberg then introduces Ungenauigkeit (Unschaerfe relation) from hints of Pauli and Dirac (who had developed independently matrix mechanics in a different and clearer notation), but succumbed ultimately to Bohr's interpretation of it, which in turn is part of Bohr's general complementarity principle. Heisenberg will later define the Copenhagen's geist as the attempt to put numbers to Bohr's correspondence principle.
The book offers plenty of stories in the relationships between the main characters, traces the establishment of uncertainty in physics and condemns its use outside of those boundaries. It largely sits only with Copenhagen and too briefly mentions Bell's theorem and its experimental validation. Still, a precious little book that traces a momentous period in the history of science and thought.
The book offers plenty of stories in the relationships between the main characters, traces the establishment of uncertainty in physics and condemns its use outside of those boundaries. It largely sits only with Copenhagen and too briefly mentions Bell's theorem and its experimental validation. Still, a precious little book that traces a momentous period in the history of science and thought.
May 1, 2013
قصة نشؤ نظرية "ميكانيكا الكم"، طرق وأساليب العلماء النظرية والتجريبية وكذلك الشخصية في صياغة هذه النظرية. صراع مبدأ الحتمية (السببية) مع مبدأ الريبة (اللايقين) ومحاولة فهم كيف تفكر الجسيمات ومطاردتها. حتى انتهى الأمر بصياغة مبدأ الريبة: (تقيس سرعة الجسيم أو قد تستطيع أن تقيس موضعه غير أنك لا تستطيع أن تنجز المهمتين معاً).
----------------
ميكانيكا الكم: انقسم العلماء في تفسيراتهم إلى أسلوبين الأول ميكانيكا الموجات (طبيعة موجية) في زيورخ والثاني ميكانيكا المصفوفات (معادلات رياضية) في جوتنجن، وهناك أصوات إخرى من كوبنهاجن وكامبريدج. بورن وجوردن وهايزنبرغ قدموا حلولاً رياضية أما شرودنجر ولو دي بروجلي قدما حلاً موجياً.و اشترك بالفريقين نيلز بور وماكس بلانك وأينشتاين وبول ديراك وكرامر وبولي وسمرفيلد مع الكثير من المبادئ الفيزيائية والرياضية.
----------------
الجيد بالكتاب أنه يعطي فكرى عن كيفية ولادة وتجمّع الأفكار العلمية، علم المطيافية، الأعداد الكمومية، قانون الديناميكا الحرارية (الأنتروبيا)، الحركة البراونية، السببية، الاحتمال الرياضي، علم الفيزياء الذرية، النظرية الموجية في المجال الكهرومغناطيسي، الإشعاع الذري، النسبية........ لكن ما يعيبه أسلوبه السردي و خاصة في قسم "روح النسق القديم".
----------------
ميكانيكا الكم: انقسم العلماء في تفسيراتهم إلى أسلوبين الأول ميكانيكا الموجات (طبيعة موجية) في زيورخ والثاني ميكانيكا المصفوفات (معادلات رياضية) في جوتنجن، وهناك أصوات إخرى من كوبنهاجن وكامبريدج. بورن وجوردن وهايزنبرغ قدموا حلولاً رياضية أما شرودنجر ولو دي بروجلي قدما حلاً موجياً.و اشترك بالفريقين نيلز بور وماكس بلانك وأينشتاين وبول ديراك وكرامر وبولي وسمرفيلد مع الكثير من المبادئ الفيزيائية والرياضية.
----------------
الجيد بالكتاب أنه يعطي فكرى عن كيفية ولادة وتجمّع الأفكار العلمية، علم المطيافية، الأعداد الكمومية، قانون الديناميكا الحرارية (الأنتروبيا)، الحركة البراونية، السببية، الاحتمال الرياضي، علم الفيزياء الذرية، النظرية الموجية في المجال الكهرومغناطيسي، الإشعاع الذري، النسبية........ لكن ما يعيبه أسلوبه السردي و خاصة في قسم "روح النسق القديم".
September 29, 2020
في نهاية الكتاب هنالك انتقاد موجه وبشكل مباشر لاؤلئك الذين يقحمون مبدأ الريبه لهايزنبيرغ في مجالات اخرى غير الفيزياء "ليس ثمة مايتعلق بميكانيكا الكم هنا" كما اشار الكاتب في احد السطور، ولعلني اكون منهم، فالسبب الذي دعاني لشراء الكتاب هو محاولة دائمة مني لخلق هذا النوع من الرابطة بين الفيزياء -بشتى فروعها- و بين الحياة اليوميه والعامة التي نعيشها انطلاقًا من ايماني بوجود رابطة ما تجمع الكون الذي كان في اساسه كتلةً واحده يومًا.
تكمن روعة الكتاب في تلك السجالات بين العلماء، ايجاد فكرة خلاقه بديعة لتبدأ بعدها سلسلة من الافكار التي تتسق معها او تناقضها وكل ذلك يحدث في مراسلات ومقابلات بين العلماء لا تكاد تنتهي من هضم فكرة ما والاستمتاع بها وبالحديث عنها بين العلماء حتى تحضر واحدة اخرى وتبدأ دورة جديده.
هنالك مصطلح(سيسولوجيا العلم) والذي يعني المجتمع العلمي تناول الكتاب شيئًا عميقًا ورائعًا عن ذلك، ومن خلاله سيشرح لك الكتاب تأثير افكار هذا المجتمع على الواقعين الحياتي و السياسي كيف ضرب التخلي عن مبدأ السببية في جذورهما آنذاك من خلال "نظرة بانورامية شاملة" في فصل احببته جدًا وهو ( خبرة حياة لا خبرة علم).
كانت رحلة رائعة جدًا وانت حتمًا ستشعر بالرغبة للعيش فيه تلك المجتمعات وفي تلك الحقبة تحديدًا لا قشور ولا سطحية هذه الايام.
تكمن روعة الكتاب في تلك السجالات بين العلماء، ايجاد فكرة خلاقه بديعة لتبدأ بعدها سلسلة من الافكار التي تتسق معها او تناقضها وكل ذلك يحدث في مراسلات ومقابلات بين العلماء لا تكاد تنتهي من هضم فكرة ما والاستمتاع بها وبالحديث عنها بين العلماء حتى تحضر واحدة اخرى وتبدأ دورة جديده.
هنالك مصطلح(سيسولوجيا العلم) والذي يعني المجتمع العلمي تناول الكتاب شيئًا عميقًا ورائعًا عن ذلك، ومن خلاله سيشرح لك الكتاب تأثير افكار هذا المجتمع على الواقعين الحياتي و السياسي كيف ضرب التخلي عن مبدأ السببية في جذورهما آنذاك من خلال "نظرة بانورامية شاملة" في فصل احببته جدًا وهو ( خبرة حياة لا خبرة علم).
كانت رحلة رائعة جدًا وانت حتمًا ستشعر بالرغبة للعيش فيه تلك المجتمعات وفي تلك الحقبة تحديدًا لا قشور ولا سطحية هذه الايام.
February 2, 2016
I think I liked this book.
But I'm not sure. :)
In a futile quest to understand quantum mechanics, I consume every layman's book on the subject that I can find. If you're as obsessed with that mystifying subject as I am -- and if, like me, you lack the serious mathematics and physics background that you'd need to be able to acquire a *real* understanding -- then I think you'll enjoy this book.
"Uncertainty" is more of a history of the milieu from which quantum mechanics sprang than an attempt to impart an in-depth understanding of the subject, but it does feature revealing insights into the characters of the main players, and it adroitly chronicles the animated back-and-forth that characterized the early years of the new science. It's easy to read, engaging, and informative. Check it out, you'll enjoy it.
Or, then again, maybe you won't... :)
But I'm not sure. :)
In a futile quest to understand quantum mechanics, I consume every layman's book on the subject that I can find. If you're as obsessed with that mystifying subject as I am -- and if, like me, you lack the serious mathematics and physics background that you'd need to be able to acquire a *real* understanding -- then I think you'll enjoy this book.
"Uncertainty" is more of a history of the milieu from which quantum mechanics sprang than an attempt to impart an in-depth understanding of the subject, but it does feature revealing insights into the characters of the main players, and it adroitly chronicles the animated back-and-forth that characterized the early years of the new science. It's easy to read, engaging, and informative. Check it out, you'll enjoy it.
Or, then again, maybe you won't... :)
November 28, 2012
مبدأ الريبة.. او هكذا اراد تسميتة "بور"
كتاب شيق جداًَ و يتحدث عن الصراع الجدلي الأزلي الذي ابتدأ في مطلع القرن الفائت بين جباهذة الفيزياء في المانيا خصوصاً فيما يتعلق بنظرية الكم و محاولة إثباتها رغم عشوائيتها!
الكتاب كُتب بطريقة أدبية شيقة و هذا ما جعلني اكملة لآخرة رغم بعض ما كنت اواجهه بعد فهم بعض اجزاء الكتاب
كتاب شيق جداًَ و يتحدث عن الصراع الجدلي الأزلي الذي ابتدأ في مطلع القرن الفائت بين جباهذة الفيزياء في المانيا خصوصاً فيما يتعلق بنظرية الكم و محاولة إثباتها رغم عشوائيتها!
الكتاب كُتب بطريقة أدبية شيقة و هذا ما جعلني اكملة لآخرة رغم بعض ما كنت اواجهه بعد فهم بعض اجزاء الكتاب
May 14, 2018
Highly recommended.
Almost 70% of the book is highlighted
Here’s my favorite quotes from the book:
Almost 70% of the book is highlighted
Here’s my favorite quotes from the book:
June 14, 2010
Very personal and historic look at the founding of modern physics. Very nice read.
February 13, 2023
I mostly enjoyed this, but sometimes it felt scattered. The more I read these books the more I suspect that Bohr is underrated, and the Copenhagen Interpretation misunderstood. I wish this had been more about Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty principle, and less about the history of the physics that led to QM.
Note to self: QM does not say that the cat in the box is both dead and alive until a measurement is made; it says that there is no way whatsoever to know whether the cat is dead or alive, until making a measurement. In that sense, to the observer the cat cannot be said to be either, because there is no dead or alive cat within the contiguous reality of the observer. There is no atom or whisker that connects the cat and the observer in any way before the measurement. You cannot beam a 'knowledge particle' to peak into the box. That is a measurement, which impacts the thing observed. Speaking of which, my cat literally just walked through his cat door, alive, and now is now very much a part of my reality. :)
*Edit: If it's true that Bohr said, "Nothing exists until it is measured," then I would disagree with that slightly, and perhaps I'm misaligned with the Copenhagen Interpretation. It's my understanding that it's meaningless to talk about something's existence until it is measured. I don't think we can say "nothing exists until it is measured." But I haven't read the full context of Bohr's quote, and I haven't looked into Bohr's work very much, something I'd like to do in the future.
Note to self: QM does not say that the cat in the box is both dead and alive until a measurement is made; it says that there is no way whatsoever to know whether the cat is dead or alive, until making a measurement. In that sense, to the observer the cat cannot be said to be either, because there is no dead or alive cat within the contiguous reality of the observer. There is no atom or whisker that connects the cat and the observer in any way before the measurement. You cannot beam a 'knowledge particle' to peak into the box. That is a measurement, which impacts the thing observed. Speaking of which, my cat literally just walked through his cat door, alive, and now is now very much a part of my reality. :)
*Edit: If it's true that Bohr said, "Nothing exists until it is measured," then I would disagree with that slightly, and perhaps I'm misaligned with the Copenhagen Interpretation. It's my understanding that it's meaningless to talk about something's existence until it is measured. I don't think we can say "nothing exists until it is measured." But I haven't read the full context of Bohr's quote, and I haven't looked into Bohr's work very much, something I'd like to do in the future.
December 25, 2019
Say you want to know the speed and position of something very small like a single particle (pick one: quarks, leptons, gluons, photons, and Higgs). Easy. You build a device to throw a beam of photons at the particle. The more photons you throw, the more precise your measure of its position. However, your intense beam of photons will change the particle’s velocity. Remember that velocity is the change in position over time, thus your experiment is changing the particle being observed. Therefore, the more you know about the particle’s position, the less you know about its velocity and vice-versa. It follows that any such experiment will have a degree of uncertainty that can be captured with probability. And this book tells the whole story about how physicists (Heisenberg and friends) converged to the definition of uncertainty at the birth of quantum mechanics.
May 30, 2022
Granted, giving up but still giving a four-star rating is probably a little weird. But I enjoyed the historical aspects of this and how it took its time covering the developing understanding of the atom and where that understanding led. It just kind of got too far beyond me to hold my interest. I think someone with a strong interest in history and science would still appreciate this. Good writing but not a page-turner.
May 14, 2018
Too much history, not enough science
February 15, 2025
Tanto di questo libro mi è incomprensibile, ma intuire quale caos abbia portato il dover rinunciare al determinismo nella scienza é super interessante
� é solo grazie a un inesplicabile atto iniziale di incertezza quantistica che ha avuto origine il nostro universo, dando via a una catena di eventi che hanno portato alla comparsa sulla scena di noi che ci domandiamo quale impulso originario abbia portato alla nostra esistenza. �
� é solo grazie a un inesplicabile atto iniziale di incertezza quantistica che ha avuto origine il nostro universo, dando via a una catena di eventi che hanno portato alla comparsa sulla scena di noi che ci domandiamo quale impulso originario abbia portato alla nostra esistenza. �
January 15, 2015
I first learned about a version of the Uncertainty Principle in high school. I remember at the time thinking that it was pretty trippy - that you could only know the position or the speed of a subatomic participle, not both. How where there things that you couldn't learn about the physical world?
Turns out the Uncertainty Principle as I remember it is both slightly inaccurate (it's the momentum, not speed) and much simplified. And, the story behind how it came to be is just fascinating.
Lindley's book tells the story of the Uncertainty Principle: how it came to be, why it was both needed and controversial, and how it changed the course of science. I realize that this sounds a bit overblown (the subtitle of the book contains the phrase "the struggle for the soul of science," after all) but I admit, Lindley had me pretty much sold by the end of the book.
The major conflict in the book is that between Bohr and Einstein, with Bohr in support of the Uncertainty Principle and all of its implications and Einstein taking the alternate view. Einstein eventually lost the argument against Uncertainty Principle and modern quantum mechanics became a field where unknowability became possible. Whenever I think of Einstein, I think about a man on the cutting edge of science; not so in this case, which was kind of a strange thing for me to realize. It was also interesting to learn about the personalities behind the science; they became human beings instead of people who had principles, atomic models, and constants named after them.
In terms of shortcomings, the book did have a few. It jumped around a bit in time, which could get a little confusing. I also felt that at times Lindley didn't make clear which scientist believed what way; sometimes it seemed like Bohr thought one thing, then 3 pages later had taken the opposite position (maybe this confusion was rooted in the time jumps? I'm not sure). Finally, while for the most part Lindley did a good job of explaining some of the more complicated scientific concepts, there were still some areas that I think could have been explained more clearly.
Overall, though, I enjoyed it. A good account of a turning point in physics.
Turns out the Uncertainty Principle as I remember it is both slightly inaccurate (it's the momentum, not speed) and much simplified. And, the story behind how it came to be is just fascinating.
Lindley's book tells the story of the Uncertainty Principle: how it came to be, why it was both needed and controversial, and how it changed the course of science. I realize that this sounds a bit overblown (the subtitle of the book contains the phrase "the struggle for the soul of science," after all) but I admit, Lindley had me pretty much sold by the end of the book.
The major conflict in the book is that between Bohr and Einstein, with Bohr in support of the Uncertainty Principle and all of its implications and Einstein taking the alternate view. Einstein eventually lost the argument against Uncertainty Principle and modern quantum mechanics became a field where unknowability became possible. Whenever I think of Einstein, I think about a man on the cutting edge of science; not so in this case, which was kind of a strange thing for me to realize. It was also interesting to learn about the personalities behind the science; they became human beings instead of people who had principles, atomic models, and constants named after them.
In terms of shortcomings, the book did have a few. It jumped around a bit in time, which could get a little confusing. I also felt that at times Lindley didn't make clear which scientist believed what way; sometimes it seemed like Bohr thought one thing, then 3 pages later had taken the opposite position (maybe this confusion was rooted in the time jumps? I'm not sure). Finally, while for the most part Lindley did a good job of explaining some of the more complicated scientific concepts, there were still some areas that I think could have been explained more clearly.
Overall, though, I enjoyed it. A good account of a turning point in physics.
November 9, 2011
The early 20th century was by no means an orderly, calm period in the world of theoretical physics. New discoveries in relativity and quantum mechanics were casting increasing doubt on classical physics. Scientists were learning that some phenomena, taking place at the unseeable atomic level, seemed not to be deterministic and predictable, but probabilistic and not so predictable.
Uncertainty provides an informative overview of the major players during this era, and explores the disarray that a changing state of knowledge brought to the physics community, with some more conservative figures, such as Einstein, advocating caution and their own belief that the universe could not truly be so disorderly, and younger physicists, such as Heisenberg, rejecting scientific orthodoxy and searching for the answers in more radical ideas. While I'm sure there are better books about physics and better biographies of famous scientists, this one does capture the division that quantum mechanics brought about among most the brilliant, legendary physicists, and their all-too human arguments as they struggled to make sense of its paradigm-shaking implications. The author also notes the background of political and social unrest taking place in Europe in the 1920s and 30s, raising the question of how much this drama may have been a part of the soul of the scientific drama.
An interesting book.
Uncertainty provides an informative overview of the major players during this era, and explores the disarray that a changing state of knowledge brought to the physics community, with some more conservative figures, such as Einstein, advocating caution and their own belief that the universe could not truly be so disorderly, and younger physicists, such as Heisenberg, rejecting scientific orthodoxy and searching for the answers in more radical ideas. While I'm sure there are better books about physics and better biographies of famous scientists, this one does capture the division that quantum mechanics brought about among most the brilliant, legendary physicists, and their all-too human arguments as they struggled to make sense of its paradigm-shaking implications. The author also notes the background of political and social unrest taking place in Europe in the 1920s and 30s, raising the question of how much this drama may have been a part of the soul of the scientific drama.
An interesting book.
August 22, 2017
I am fascinated by shifts in world view. The world is still the same, but our stories about that world change. In effect, nothing is the same.
Issac Newton described a clockwork world as part of the Enlightenment. Einstein pivoted and described a world that was almost the same but yet different. Heisenberg pulled the rug out from both of them by saying that we could not know what the details of the world (at least at the quantum level) really were.
It is more complicated than that, but you need to read to book to understand why. Lindley tells a lovely story of the unfolding of this shift in world views. There is just enough science to be useful but not enough to confuse the reader not familiar with the subject.
Recommended for all readers.
Issac Newton described a clockwork world as part of the Enlightenment. Einstein pivoted and described a world that was almost the same but yet different. Heisenberg pulled the rug out from both of them by saying that we could not know what the details of the world (at least at the quantum level) really were.
It is more complicated than that, but you need to read to book to understand why. Lindley tells a lovely story of the unfolding of this shift in world views. There is just enough science to be useful but not enough to confuse the reader not familiar with the subject.
Recommended for all readers.
November 3, 2020
This is a good primer on quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle for people, like me, who may be a bit mathematically dense. If that doesn't describe you, then this book is not for you, as so many of the reviews underline. It's written for the layman and does not offer the level of mathematical detail that some clearly were looking for.
It does a very good job of explaining the anxiety Heisenberg's view produced, particularly to just how far we can dig down into the natural world without affecting what is observed. At a point, at least at this point in time, nature becomes inscrutable. This flies directly in the face of determinism, and, as far as I can see, that's what caused such an uproar.
It does a very good job of explaining the anxiety Heisenberg's view produced, particularly to just how far we can dig down into the natural world without affecting what is observed. At a point, at least at this point in time, nature becomes inscrutable. This flies directly in the face of determinism, and, as far as I can see, that's what caused such an uproar.
October 1, 2008
I was disappointed. Not completely, but what's the point of a book on Einstein, Heisenberg, et al without the formulas? Where were the scientific formulas? I'm not going to pretend I would have understood them all (ok or even 97% of them), but I was most interested in how they came up with the theories -- and I got the history and some of the science, but none of the specifics. I wanted to see some of those crazy mathematical symbols that are used in NUMB3RS.
I get that the book was written for the masses, but couldn't it have written for the intellectually curious masses? just a thought.
I get that the book was written for the masses, but couldn't it have written for the intellectually curious masses? just a thought.
August 25, 2013
الجيد في هذا الكتاب أنه منحني اطلاعًا على شخصيات العلماء الذين أسهموا في نظرية الكم وغيرها منها العلوم وكيف أثرت بعض الأحداث العالمية كالحروب وغيرها عليهم.
المعلومات التي أضافها - بالنسبة لي - فيما يختص بنظرية الكم ليست جديدة وقليل منها لم يذكر في كتب غير متخصصة قرأتها من قبل، ولكن أعتقد أن الأمر يرجع إلى صعوبة شرح نظرية الكم المعقدة إلى حدٍ ما لغير المتخصصين، الجميل في الأمر أنني رأيت معلومات كنت أعرفها بوجهة نظر أخرى أكثر إنسانية وواقعية ومحتدمة بالصراع المستمر بين أولئك الذين دافعوا عن الفيزياء الكلاسيكية والحتمية - آينشتين وشرودنجر في الغالب - والفريق الآخر على النقيض منه الذي مثله بور وهايزنبرج وبولي وغيرهم.
المعلومات التي أضافها - بالنسبة لي - فيما يختص بنظرية الكم ليست جديدة وقليل منها لم يذكر في كتب غير متخصصة قرأتها من قبل، ولكن أعتقد أن الأمر يرجع إلى صعوبة شرح نظرية الكم المعقدة إلى حدٍ ما لغير المتخصصين، الجميل في الأمر أنني رأيت معلومات كنت أعرفها بوجهة نظر أخرى أكثر إنسانية وواقعية ومحتدمة بالصراع المستمر بين أولئك الذين دافعوا عن الفيزياء الكلاسيكية والحتمية - آينشتين وشرودنجر في الغالب - والفريق الآخر على النقيض منه الذي مثله بور وهايزنبرج وبولي وغيرهم.
December 2, 2017
An excellent account of the social -- and interpersonal -- history surrounding uncertainty in science. Accessible to the layperson (me). However, at the key juncture where Heisenberg intuits the structural, irreducibly uuncertain aspects of quantum behavior, the author may have erred too far on the side of accessibility. He needed to slow down and explain with 10% more rigor what Heisenberg et al actually determined. I was ready to do the work, but the author didn't really give me the chance. But overall a great, considered read.
October 25, 2013
this book stands in relation to physics as art history is to art. I can't remember why I put it on my to-read list. I think perhaps it got a very good review in The Economist.
It is interesting to put some colour on the main players. We learn at school that 'the atom is like this,' and 'Brownian motion is that.' But to follow people devoting their lives to figuring it out, based on what they knew at the time, puts it all in quite a different perspective.
It is interesting to put some colour on the main players. We learn at school that 'the atom is like this,' and 'Brownian motion is that.' But to follow people devoting their lives to figuring it out, based on what they knew at the time, puts it all in quite a different perspective.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 158 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.