In this fictitious dialogue, it is clearly explained how quantum physics is deterministic and how it is indeterministic, and it is also clearly said what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is.
©2016 John-Michael Kuczynski (P)2016 John-Michael Kuczynski
it would have better, but the narrator was not good
when the author was explaining the relative nature of determinism; that was kind of mind-blowing.
she was slow, did not articulate the material, and it was not clear which of the two characters was talking
yes, the discussion of state variables
it's more a discussion of general principles of physics and metaphysics than quantum, but kuczynski does beautifully and illuminatingly discuss the two really, really importance concepts, namely that of an interference effect and that of a state variable
slightly, but the narrator wasn't very good
the discussion of the different kinds of determinism
it was slow and uneven. too slow
yes, the part where Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was being explained in lay terms
this book is for people who really want to understand foundational issues. the usual pseudo-intellectuals who read pop-physics will be turned off, since this book does not validate their palaver and glib reasoning. it was refreshingly authoritative.
uncertainty properly explained
the explanation of the quantum in terms of the macro
the part where the relative nature of determinism is explained
the concept of interference
kuczynski hits the main points, doesn't get bogged down in nonsense. lesser minds will feel exposed and will likely flail and hiss. I wish i'd read this 20 years ago instead of wasting my time listening to clucks posing as savants.
the way it focused on important principles, to the exclusion of the usual pseudo-intellectual jabber that scums up most discussions of the quantum phy
the author's metaphors, which are really vivid
slow, long pauses, didn't put the emphasis in the right places, couldn't tell who was talking
the uncertainty principles
the man is smart, writes well, could writer of dialogue, which is rare; the narrator was not right for this part
yes, replete with information
the discussion of the car crash
the ties that don't bind
great book, very clear, narrator not ideal
how vivid and well chosen the illustrations of these abstract scientific principles were
the discussion of state variables
not much, but the sound quality was good, and no threat clearing or anything like that, so it was easy on the ears, even though as an actress/narrator she tanked
the book itself is good; the presentation, the narration, not so much
after hearing it, i bought other things by the other, which are way better
the clarity and sweep
the discussion of the guy on the date, as an illustration of interference effects
understood the lines she was reading, read faster
imagining the unimaginable
good book, should be re-issued with better narrator
the rigor, combined with the powerful and realistic illustrations of abstract
the vividness, almost like a novel, not (just) analysis (but plenty of that too!)
i want to hear more from this author!
I focus on fiction, sci-fi, fantasy, science, history, politics and read a lot. I try to review everything I read.
Einstein would assuredly not love this. It misses completely all the interesting aspects of Quantum Physics that Einstein and Bohr debated. There are numerous misunderstandings about what experiments tell us about quantum reality. It basically proposes that a deterministic wave function version resolves quantum questions. Well, it kind of does, but the author does not follow the consequences of this theory. The assumption the author makes (after taking measurements on entangled particles into account) just about forces one into acceptance of Everett’s Universal Wave Function (i.e. Multi-World). The author does not get this far and seems to think the measurement problem in quantum physics is about disturbing the system. It is not, as the Einstein and Bohr discussions on entangled measurements (and Bell Test Experiments) show.
This “Unified Theory” does not unify anything. Of the three in this series I tried, this is the weakest and likely my last, as it demonstrates the author’s attraction to abstract philosophy and inattention to experimental reality (science).
This author is clearly well intentioned, but seems deluded.
The acoustics of the narration is pretty bad. It is a dialog which the two speakers are distinguishable mainly by the different (both high) levels of distortion in the audio.
Report Inappropriate Content