4 ms·
Does anyone have a good recommendation for an introductory book on these concepts? I read a bit of The Fabric of Reality but had trouble progressing too far wi
by ackbar03 2y ago
Does anyone have a good recommendation for an introductory book on these concepts?
I read a bit of The Fabric of Reality but had trouble progressing too far with that one. The author talks about the quantum slit experiment, somehow arrives at the explanation of parallel universes, and then claims anyone who disagrees with this conclusion must have faulty logic. A huge chunk of reasoning behind parallel universes seems to be skipped and I have trouble taking it seriously every time it is brought up.
- sandgiant 2y agoSean Carroll (professor of physics, quoted in the article) has a highly-rated book titled "Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime" [1] which discusses exactly these topics. I haven't read it, but it's on my list. I also highly recommend his podcast "Mindscape" where he discusses this and a range of other topics in science and philosophy. [2] [1] https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/somethingdeeplyhidden/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/somethingdeeplyhidden/ [2] https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/
- codethief 2y ago> A and then claims anyone who disagrees with this conclusion must have faulty logic. A huge chunk of reasoning behind parallel universes seems to be skipped and I have trouble taking it seriously every time it is brought up. I think your scepticism is generally warranted. There is a reason the many-worlds interpretation is called an interpretation, just like the Copenhagen interpretation and others. The interpretations cannot be logically deduced from the experimental evidence we have. They are attempts to try to make sense of the results. As for book recommendations, I have really liked Tim Maylin's "Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory" because of the precision and clarity he brings to the discussion. I should mention, though, that I've got a physics degree.
- mikhailfranco 2y agoTim Maudlin
- codethief 2y agoThanks, my phone's auto-correction at work :\
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoTake the content, paste it into chatgpt and ask it to explain it with simpler language, more details and examples.
- Tagbert 2y agoYou might check out the PBS Spacetime series on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/@pbsspacetime https://www.youtube.com/@pbsspacetime
- SoftTalker 2y agoIt seems to be well produced but the presenter rubs me the wrong way for some reason.
- naught0 2y agoI love watching this channel even though it sounds like word salad to me
- MaxikCZ 2y agoI came here to reccomend this channel aswell. The "basics" were all covered years ago (6+), and now Matt is dipping into more complicated topics. If you find his recent videos overwhelming, I suggest to give his older ones a try.
- groestl 2y agoFor German speakers, I also recommend Josef Gaßner's YouTube series "Von Aristoteles zur Stringtheorie" (I find it a bit more structured than PBS Space Time, albeit maybe less amusing).
- benreesman 2y agoIt’s very much a Copernican boundary: human beings desperately want to be at the center of things. At one time this meant being at the center of the universe, today it’s more like wanting to be at the center of a unique identity with a deterministic past but an undetermined future. This has led to countless interpretations of e.g. the Born Rule where humans have a unique ability to force wavefunction collapse with their senses. Hugh Everett and those who subscribe to his post-Copernican view assert that we’re better off discarding the parochial attachment to a unique identify of experience than we are discarding theory validated by experiment beyond credible doubt.
- rini17 2y agoHumans also desperately want to find something that transcends them. But so far failed to find matching QM interpretation with new explanatory power.
- benreesman 2y agoPhysics and mathematics have yet to answer age-old questions about the meaning of life, and it’s understandable that this would be disappointing! Our most intelligent people, adequately if not always amply funded to probe the deepest mysteries of the universe have come back with: “there is no evidence that it means anything, or really that it even happened in the way you mean”. Who wouldn’t be disappointed? But this is ultimately a failure of our priests and politicians and parents: it’s not the job of scientists to be our nursemaids in an indifferent cosmos. We have people for that role, at least on paper.
- rini17 2y ago"We have people for that role" is exactly the copernical boundary, that he transgressed :)
- strogonoff 2y agoOne cannot truly avoid being human-centric, if the territory of reality is never available to one other than a map constructed by one’s consciousness. The core conceptual constructs used to reason about reality, the ways of attending to reality, the approaches to measuring it, this is all inherently coloured by humanness and further distinct cultural predispositions (a Western natural scientist is biased in one way, a !Kung shaman is biased in another). To assume the possibility of an unbiased take is unreasonable. (There is never a complete map of the territory that covers the entirety of the territory in a way equally suitable for every possible use. Such a map would be the territory itself, which is not made directly available. So it’s good to have different maps, and to acknowledge that none of them can be assumed to be correct/complete.) That said, assuming the hypothetical ability to cause what we refer to as “wavefunction collapse” via observation does not seem to strictly imply a human-centric view. Humans may be treated as a particular kind of conscious observer, but in a monistic idealist take assuming they are alone in that seems insufficient to describe reality.
- jgoldfar0nil 2y agoGreat question and I’m hoping to see some other recommendations here. In my opinion Coveney & Highfield’s 1990 survey “The Arrow of Time: A voyage through science to solve time's greatest mystery” is better than most for clearly connecting where theoretical approaches like many-worlds to the context they arise at the intersection of relativity, statistical thermodynamics, and quantum theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-85227-197-8 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-85... As the book is 30+ years old and predates what I have to assume to be significant progress in the respective fields I would be keen to know if the experts here are aware of updated sources at any level (peer reviewed papers, monographs, etc.)
- bbor 2y agoJust for context as a fellow interested noob: That book in particular is more like a manifesto than a survey, so it's not really intended to be 100% convincing, IMO. And AFAICT most of that book is about using the philosophy of the multiverse, not about justifying the physics -- so you definitely shouldn't feel bad coming away with that conclusion. An infinite multiverse is, to say the least, controversial! For recommendations, assuming the linked articles themselves aren't up for grabs, I really liked The Rigor of Angels for a more historical-philosophical view on quantum physics, and how it compares to its predecessors. I also constantly reccommend this other Quanta article from a few years back, which is shorter and more cohesive than these: https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-a-particle-20201112/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-a-particle-20201112/ Sadly, I think this whole field has an inherent level where it breaks down for non-experts, epistemologically speaking (how appropriate!). Watching Hossenfelder's engaging YouTube videos has taught me one thing above all else: I have no hope of critically engaging with the fine details of modern theories, only the metaphors and stories that surround the math.
- verisimi 2y agoWhat about if these people, despite their special terminology and maths, don't know either, and they're all just acting like they do? Stranger things have happened.
- netfortius 2y agoI recommend Carlo Rovelli's books.
- skirmish 2y agoI only read "The Order of Time" by him but it was very mind-bending to me. Paraphrased below. He argues that time arrow (mostly) does not exist in classical or quantum physics, all equations run as well forward in time as backward. The only area different is thermodynamics, and there he argues it is all due to our feeble mental capabilities. If we could observe and track each molecule's movement, time arrow would disappear again, we could easily run the system backwards. He concludes that time is just a consciousness' invention to help make sense of the observed chaos. A more powerful mind would have no use for time.
- ackbar03 2y agoI went out and borrowed this book after Carlo Rovelli was recommended, so far it has been indeed quite mind-bending
- quantadev 2y agoI think we're already at a point with LLMs (namely ChatGPT and Claude) where everyone has their own personalized Physics professor that you can ask any question you want. You can even say "explain it to me like I'm 5" and it will. You probably already knew this tho. :)
- NateEag 2y agoAnd the explanation may or may not be total nonsense. Good luck figuring that out on subjects you don't understand.
- quantadev 2y agoYeah, that's a good point. I just mean if someone reads a book, and fails to fully understand an explanation of some topic, it's more likely than not that an LLM can help them understand it, and do as good a job as a human expert could.
- emrah 2y agoThere are great video series on YouTube, for example: https://m.youtube.com/@pbsspacetime https://m.youtube.com/@pbsspacetime https://m.youtube.com/@HistoryoftheUniverse https://m.youtube.com/@HistoryoftheUniverse I often find videos easier to follow due to the great visuals. You can also listen to interviews with the authors on podcasts. They talk about their books and the concepts in them. And as always, your favorite LLM is a great companion to help you understand. I've consulted it several times and the answers and links it provided were very helpful
- mazsa 2y agohttps://www.amazon.com/Physics-Symmetry-Undergraduate-Lecture-Notes/dp/3319666304/ https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Symmetry-Undergraduate-Lectur...