Helgoland: The Strange and Beautiful Story of Quantum Physics

The book is simply fantastic. Tackles quantum physics like it should be - mysterious, enigmatic but explained elegantly and beautifully.

Professor Rovelli is a wonderful wordsmith in Italian. I got this impression after reading the English translation. If the English is so beautiful then what must be the beauty of the Italian? Now let us take a look at the subject matter. The first section of the book deals with the strange properties of Reality as disclosed by the quantum theory. All people, even those who have a degree in Physics, should read this section to better understand the strangeness of the predictions of the quantum theory. The second section of the book deals with relational interpretation of quantum theory. This section while robustly argued may not be found convincing to all. Prof Rovelli even talks about the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakarika in order to support his understanding of Quantum theory. I disagree with his understanding of Nagarjuna. I don't think shunyata of Nagarjuna really means that there is no Ultimate Reality. The third section deals with strange phenomenon. For example it deals with latest neouroscience finding that it is the brain that really controls most of the time what we see and not the eye. Again his explanation that the brain does it by anticipating what we should see or by using previous experience is not convincing. How would brain anticipate if a human has never seen something? I wish Prof Rovelli had read the Advaita Vedanta classic Pancadasi which says that humans see by the mind taking an imprint of the external object and not by the eye. Any way I would strongly recommend this book for the general reader with the proviso that not everybody agrees with the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics.

It’s like watching yourself throw a pebble into a clear blue stream and then see it slowly settle on the riverbed.

Good 😊 thanks for

A craze is there

Carlo took me through an intriguing journey through the vessel of quantum physics, philosophy, and the nature of reality. Makes me question the fundamental assumptions based on which we as a race have lived on competition, and why we should move to strive on relationships!

Good

I don’t mind confessing to being moved to tears by this book. Saying anything further will detract from each readers personal experience. I urge you to read it and discover for yourself. Bon voyage.

An excellent read - although it has flaws. Cons: > I don’t think he actually explains the core point of Relational Quantum Mechanics clearly - it’s a bit mumbled. I’d definitely supplement it with the Wikipedia page on Relational Quantum Mechanics and follow the mathematical argument (which is pretty simple but not given in the book). > There is a little repetition from his other books. > He’s a big fan of the historical account style which I get a bit bored with after a while. > I think his philosophy is sound but he does write like a physicist/historian and almost a poet, and only half like a true philosopher. So he is occasionally guilty of making statements without a thorough supporting background. But I forgive him that - basically because I think he’s right. Pros: > Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) a hugely under-represented interpretation of quantum mechanics often left out of other books. This is annoying because it is the correct interpretation (imo)! And also the most profound under examination. If you want your whole metaphysical world view shaken up a bit, and not in a pseudoscience nonsense way - then read this book! > The latter chapters, where he expounds on the consequences to our philosophical world view including that of consciousness is interesting. There are a few ideas from there which really made me smile and he helped to pad out some of the things I was unable to think through properly, for example, in what way precisely Everett’s interpretation of QM is metaphysically biased, and how consciousness and meaning relate to the view of RQM, and also, how the Buddhist concept of emptiness relates- interesting as I didn’t think he would go there. > There is also a great bit where he ties in some modern neuroscience research into how the brain deals with information from the eyes, and how our visual experience is like a ‘confirmed hallucination’ or constantly updated mental model, and analogises this to the metaphysical view of RQM. > I also think he mentioned solipsism and why RQM isn’t it, which I also was pondering and now feel I understand. > He seems to have thrown in an alternative way to look at the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness' as an afterthought as well, nice bonus. Conclusion Overall a great read if you are interested in physics, philosophy/metaphysics, quantum mechanics, or history of science. It presents plenty of new ideas and left me extremely satisfied at the end, although readers unfamiliar with quantum mechanics at all might be better reading is earlier books first. Despite its flaws, its a clear 5 stars from me :P

Carlo Rovelli kann Quantenmechanik für nicht Quantenmechaniker wie kein anderer Autor beschreiben. Die atemraubenden Perspektiven an die Realität die er durch die Leben und Einsichten der Persönlichkeiten wie Werner Heisenberg und seine Internationalen Kollegen einblicken lässt, werden durch seine Begabung als Physiker und Dichter zugänglich gemacht, ohne den üblichen Unsinn mit toten und gleichzeitig nicht toten Katzen in Kisten zu wiederholen. Für jemand wie ich, der vor 50 Jahren Quantenmechanik gelernt hat, ist das Buch erfrischend.

Two caveats. The minor one is that I didn't understand how the relational interpretation of quantum physics allegedly solved the weirdness of quantum entanglement (perhaps it's only my fault). The most problematic one is seeing Rovelli trying to deceive himself, when he says that there is no "hard problem" of consciousness based on the fact that all we can think of is relational. That sounds utterly naive. He seems to ignore that even realizing a problem has no possible solution does not eliminate the problem. The fact is that we still don't have the slightest idea of how brain processes "create" consciousness as we experience it. For me it's almost tautological that no set of infinite "correlations" between brain and consciousness would "explain how we create" conscious phenomena. This is Chalmer's hard problem. Perhaps is beyond our rational capabilities. Assuming we do not have cognitive boundaries proves our own stupidity. Anyway, the book is excellent!

Carlos Reveli has a different approach than most to explaining difficult physics. He tells interesting stories of the people involved in the development of crucial experiments and theoretical insights. He only reviews a few critical experiments and not a whole load of other interesting quantum properties . He goes on to present his own insights that explain some of the puzzling aspects of quantum mechanics - basically that the properties of an isolated entitiy cannot be known or in fact do not really exist.

Rovelli is a wonderful writer about science. I have read others of his books and he is able to explain these very difficult concepts in ways I find much more simple to understand. The final chapter, where he brings the idea of consciousness into consonance with his view of quantum reality, was really mind-boggling to me. At this point I agree with him as completely as my limited understanding allows. I now see the world around me as a constant weaving of interactions that create the earth and all we see moment by moment