What do you think?
Rate this book
Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics
A newly edited collection of all published as well as unpublished papers on quantum mechanics by the leading interpreter of modern quantum theory.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1987
31 people are currently reading
720 people want to read
About the author
John Stewart Bell
7 books17 followersJohn Stewart Bell FRS (28 June 1928 – 1 October 1990) was a Northern Irish physicist, and the originator of Bell's theorem, a significant theorem in quantum physics regarding hidden variable theories.
John Bell was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland. When he was 11 years old, he decided to be a scientist, and at 16 graduated from Belfast Technical High School. Bell then attended the Queen's University of Belfast, and obtained a bachelor's degree in experimental physics in 1948, and one in mathematical physics a year later. He went on to complete a Ph.D. in physics at the University of Birmingham in 1956, specialising in nuclear physics and quantum field theory. In 1954, he married Mary Ross, also a physicist, whom he had met while working on accelerator physics at Malvern, UK.
Bell's career began with the UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment, near Harwell, Oxfordshire, known as AERE or Harwell Laboratory. After several years he moved to work for the European Council for Nuclear Research (CERN, Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire), in Geneva, Switzerland. Here he worked almost exclusively on theoretical particle physics and on accelerator design, but found time to pursue a major avocation, investigating the foundations of quantum theory. He was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1987. Also of significance during his career, Bell, together with John Bradbury Sykes, M. J. Kearsley, and W. H. Reid, translated several of the famous ten volume Course of Theoretical Physics of Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifshitz, making these works available to a vast English speaking audience in impeccable translation, all of which remain in print.
In 1964, after a year's leave from CERN that he spent at Stanford University, the University of Wisconsin–Madison and Brandeis University, he wrote a paper entitled "On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox". In this work, he showed that carrying forward EPR's analysis permits one to derive the famous Bell's theorem. The resultant inequality, derived from certain assumptions, is violated by quantum theory.
There is some disagreement regarding what Bell's inequality—in conjunction with the EPR analysis—can be said to imply. Bell held that not only local hidden variables, but any and all local theoretical explanations must conflict with the predictions of quantum theory: "It is known that with Bohm's example of EPR correlations, involving particles with spin, there is an irreducible nonlocality." According to an alternative interpretation, not all local theories in general, but only local hidden variables theories (or "local realist" theories) have shown to be incompatible with the predictions of quantum theory.
Bell died unexpectedly of a cerebral hemorrhage in Geneva in 1990. Unbeknownst to Bell, that year he had been nominated for a Nobel prize (which is never awarded posthumously). His contribution to the issues raised by EPR was significant. Some regard him as having demonstrated the failure of local realism (local hidden variables). Bell's own interpretation is that locality itself met its demise.
In 2008, the John Stewart Bell Prize was created by the Centre for Quantum Information and Quantum Control at the University of Toronto. The prize is awarded every other year for significant contributions first published during the six preceding years. The award recognizes major advances relating to the foundations of quantum mechanics and to the applications of these principles. In 2009, the first award was presented by Alain Aspect to Nicolas Gisin for his theoretical and experimental work on foundations and applications of quantum physics — notably quantum nonlocality, quantum cryptography, and quantum teleportation.
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell'...
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac....
http://cqiqc.physics.utoronto.ca/bell...
John Bell was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland. When he was 11 years old, he decided to be a scientist, and at 16 graduated from Belfast Technical High School. Bell then attended the Queen's University of Belfast, and obtained a bachelor's degree in experimental physics in 1948, and one in mathematical physics a year later. He went on to complete a Ph.D. in physics at the University of Birmingham in 1956, specialising in nuclear physics and quantum field theory. In 1954, he married Mary Ross, also a physicist, whom he had met while working on accelerator physics at Malvern, UK.
Bell's career began with the UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment, near Harwell, Oxfordshire, known as AERE or Harwell Laboratory. After several years he moved to work for the European Council for Nuclear Research (CERN, Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire), in Geneva, Switzerland. Here he worked almost exclusively on theoretical particle physics and on accelerator design, but found time to pursue a major avocation, investigating the foundations of quantum theory. He was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1987. Also of significance during his career, Bell, together with John Bradbury Sykes, M. J. Kearsley, and W. H. Reid, translated several of the famous ten volume Course of Theoretical Physics of Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifshitz, making these works available to a vast English speaking audience in impeccable translation, all of which remain in print.
In 1964, after a year's leave from CERN that he spent at Stanford University, the University of Wisconsin–Madison and Brandeis University, he wrote a paper entitled "On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox". In this work, he showed that carrying forward EPR's analysis permits one to derive the famous Bell's theorem. The resultant inequality, derived from certain assumptions, is violated by quantum theory.
There is some disagreement regarding what Bell's inequality—in conjunction with the EPR analysis—can be said to imply. Bell held that not only local hidden variables, but any and all local theoretical explanations must conflict with the predictions of quantum theory: "It is known that with Bohm's example of EPR correlations, involving particles with spin, there is an irreducible nonlocality." According to an alternative interpretation, not all local theories in general, but only local hidden variables theories (or "local realist" theories) have shown to be incompatible with the predictions of quantum theory.
Bell died unexpectedly of a cerebral hemorrhage in Geneva in 1990. Unbeknownst to Bell, that year he had been nominated for a Nobel prize (which is never awarded posthumously). His contribution to the issues raised by EPR was significant. Some regard him as having demonstrated the failure of local realism (local hidden variables). Bell's own interpretation is that locality itself met its demise.
In 2008, the John Stewart Bell Prize was created by the Centre for Quantum Information and Quantum Control at the University of Toronto. The prize is awarded every other year for significant contributions first published during the six preceding years. The award recognizes major advances relating to the foundations of quantum mechanics and to the applications of these principles. In 2009, the first award was presented by Alain Aspect to Nicolas Gisin for his theoretical and experimental work on foundations and applications of quantum physics — notably quantum nonlocality, quantum cryptography, and quantum teleportation.
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell'...
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac....
http://cqiqc.physics.utoronto.ca/bell...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
October 30, 2012
Totally charming collection of papers by John Bell, who took Einstein (EPR) seriously and proposed "Bell's Inequalities" to challenge non-locality in quantum theory, the challenge subsequently confirmed by Aspect and others by experiment. A good touch of humor. Includes his refutation of von Neumann's proof of the mathematical impossibility of hidden variables (Wow!), the original EPR analysis papers, praise for de Brogli-Bohm, and much else. See especially "Bertlmann's Socks and the Nature of Reality". A tragedy that he died relatively young.
June 18, 2024
A COLLECTION OF THE IRISH PHYSICIST’S IMPORTANT PAPERS ON QUANTUM THEORY
John Stewart Bell (1928–1990) was a physicist from Northern Ireland who worked at the UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment, and then at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1987 book, “Cambridge University Press suggested that I send [them] my papers on quantum philosophy and let [them] make them into a book I have done so. The papers, from the years 1964-1986, are presented here in the order… in which they were written. Papers 18 and 20… are nontechnical introductions to the subject. They are meant to be intelligible to nonphysicists. So also is most of paper 16… which is concerned with the problem of apparent action at a distance.” (Pg. viii)
He notes, “The question at issue is the famous ‘reduction of the wave packet.’ There are, ultimately, no mechanical arguments for this process, and the arguments that are actually used may well called ‘moral.’ … Thus, if the morality of measurements of macroscopic pointer readings is granted, there is no real ambiguity in practice in applying quantum mechanics. One must simply understand well enough the structure of the systems involved, including the instruments, and workout the consequences. This situation is not peculiar to quantum mechanics. Moreover, we are readily disposed to accept the moral character of observing macroscopic pointers, for we feel convinced from common experience that they are not much changed in state by being looked at, and the moral process is in an obvious sense minimal. Thus, the basis or practical quantum mechanics seems secure. This is just as well, in view of its magnificent success, and of the fact that there is no real competitor in sight.” (Pg. 22, 24)
He concludes at the end of one paper, “These considerations, in our opinion, lead inescapably to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is, at the best, incomplete. We look forward to a new theory which can refer meaningfully to events in a given system without requiring ‘observation’ by another system. The critical test cases requiring this conclusion are systems containing consciousness and the universe as a whole… it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded. In this it is like all theories made by man. But to an unusual extent its ultimate fate is apparent in its internal structure. It carries in itself the seeds of its own destruction.” (Pg. 26-27)
He observes, “So the [quantum] theory is fundamentally about the results of ‘measurements,’ and therefore presupposes … a ‘measurer’ (or subject). Now must this subject include a person? Or was there already some such subject-object distinction before the appearance of life in the universe?... Is ‘measurement’ something that occurs all at once?... And so on. The pioneers of quantum mechanics were not unaware of these questions, but quite rightly did not wait for agreed answers before developing the theory. They were entirely justified by results. The vagueness of the postulates in no way interferes with the miraculous accuracy of the calculations. Whenever necessary a little more of the world can be incorporated into the object… It would be foolish to expect that the next basic development in theoretical physics will yield an accurate and final theory. But it is interesting to speculate on the possibility that a future theory will not be INTRINSICALLY ambiguous and approximate… it should again become possible to say of a system not that such and such may be OBSERVED to be so but that such and such BE so.” (Pg. 40-41)
He states, “The continuing dispute about quantum measurement theory is not between people who disagree on the results of simple mathematical manipulations. Nor is it between people with different ideas about the actual practicality of measuring arbitrarily complicated observables. It is between people who view with different degrees of concern or complacency the following fact: so long as the wave packet reduction is an essential component, and so long as we do not know exactly when and how it takes over from the Schrödinger equation, we do not have an exact and unambiguous formulation of our most fundamental physical theory.” (Pg. 51)
Of the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of QM by Hugh Everett, he comments, “we raise here a couple of questions about it. The first is based on this observation: there are infinitely many different expansions of type ‘E,’ corresponding to the infinitely many complete sets… Is there then an additional multiplicity of universe corresponding in the infinitely many ways of expanding, as well as that corresponding to the infinitely many terms in each expansion?... The second question… [is]: if instrument readings are to be given such a fundamental role should we not be told more exactly what an instrument reading is, or indeed, an instrument, or a storage unit in a memory, or whatever?... I think that fundamental physical theory should be so formulated that such artificial divisions are manifestly inessential. In my opinion Everett has not given such a formulation---and de Broglie has.” (Pg. 96-97)
He says, “That the theory is supposed to apply fundamentally to the world as a whole requires ultimately that any ‘observers’ be included in the system. This raises no particular problem so long as they are conceived as not essentially different from computers, equipped perhaps with ‘random’ number generators. Then everything is in fact predetermined at the fundamental level… To include creatures with free will would require some development, and here the de Broglie-Bohm version might develop differently from the usual approach… That the guiding wave, in the general case, propagates not in ordinary three-space but in a multidimensional-configuration space is the origin of the notorious ‘nonlocality’ of quantum mechanics. It is a merit of the de Broglie-Bohm version to bring this out so explicitly that it cannot be ignored.” (Pg. 115)
He points out, “Cosmologists… must find the usual interpretive rules of quantum mechanics a bit frustrating… It would seem that the theory is exclusively concerned with ‘results of measurement’ and has nothing to say about anything else. When the ‘system’ is the whole world where is the ‘measurer’ to be found?... What exactly qualifies some subsystems to play this role? Was the world wave function waiting to jump for thousands of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some more highly qualified measurer---with a Ph.D.? If the theory is to apply to anything but idealized laboratory operations, are we not obliged to admit that more or less ‘measurement-like’ processes are going on more or less all the time more or less everywhere?” (Pg. 117)
Returning to the Everett/DeWitt ‘many universe’ concept, he states, “In the usual theory it is supposed that only one of the possible results of a measurement is actually realized on a given occasion, and the wave function is ‘reduced’ accordingly. But Everett introduced the idea that ALL possible outcomes are realized every time, each in a different edition of the universe, which is therefore continually multiplying to accommodate all possible outcomes of every measurement… Now it seems to me that this multiplication of universes is extravagant, and serves no real purpose in the theory, and can simply be dropped without repercussions… To have multiplied universes, to realize all possible configurations of particles, would have seemed grotesque.” (Pg. 133-134)
He asserts, “It is important to note that the limited degree to which DETERMINISM plays a role in the EPR argument, it is not assumed but INFERRED. What is held sacred is the principle of ‘local causality’---or ‘no action at a distance.’ … It is remarkably difficult to get this point across, that determinism is not a PRESUPPOSITION of the analysis. There is a widespread and erroneous conviction that for Einstein determinism was always THE sacred principle. The quotability of his famous ‘God does not play dice’ has not helped this respect. Among those who had great difficulty in seeing Einstein’s position was Born.” (Pg. 143)
He clarifies, “let me argue against a myth… that quantum theory had undone somehow the Copernican revolution. From those who made that revolution we learned that the world is more intelligible when we do not imagine ourselves to be at the center of it. Does not quantum theory again place ‘observers’… us… at the center of the picture?... from some popular presentations the general public could get the impression that the very existence of the cosmos depends on our being here to observe the observables… I see no evidence that it is so in the success of contemporary quantum theory. So I think it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is integrated into modern atomic physics. Or that ‘information’ is the real stuff of physical theory. It seems to me irresponsible to suggest that technical features of contemporary theory were anticipated by the saints of ancient religions… by introspection.” (Pg. 170)
Of the Many Worlds Interpretation [MWI], he observes, “The MWI is sometimes put forward as a working out of the hypothesis: the wavefunction is everything, there is nothing else… But here the authors, in my opinion, are mistaken… It is easy to understand the attraction … for journalists, trying to hold the attention of the man in the street. The opposite of a truth is also a truth! Scientists say that matter is not possible without mind! All possible worlds are actual worlds! Wow! And the journalists can write these things with good consciences, for things like this have indeed been said, out of working hours, by great physicists… As regards mind, I am fully convinced that it has a central place in the ultimate nature of reality. But… The ‘many worlds interpretation’ seems to me … an extravagantly vague hypothesis. I could almost dismiss it as silly… it would be worthwhile, I think, to formulate some precise version of it … And the existence of all possible worlds may make us more comfortable about the existence of our own world, which seems to be in some ways a highly improbable one… To what extent are these possible worlds fictions? They are like literary fiction in that they are free inventions of the human mind. In theoretical physics sometimes the inventor knows from the beginning that the work is fiction, for example when it deals with a simplified world in which space has only one or two dimensions instead of three.” (Pg. 193-195)
And of course, his famous statement in ‘Are There Quantum Jumps?’: “the paper so 1955 ends, rather lamely, with the admission that Schrödinger does not see how, for the present, to account for particle tracks in track chambers; nor, more generally, for the definiteness, the particularity, of the world of experience, as compared with the indefiniteness, the waviness, of the wave function. It is the problem that he had had … with his cat. He thought that she could not be both dead and alive. But the wavefunction showed no such commitment, superposing the possibilities. Either the wavefunction, as given by the Schrödinger equation ,is not everything, or it is no right.” (Pg. 201)
These papers will be of great interest to those studying quantum mechanics, and particularly its historical development.
John Stewart Bell (1928–1990) was a physicist from Northern Ireland who worked at the UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment, and then at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1987 book, “Cambridge University Press suggested that I send [them] my papers on quantum philosophy and let [them] make them into a book I have done so. The papers, from the years 1964-1986, are presented here in the order… in which they were written. Papers 18 and 20… are nontechnical introductions to the subject. They are meant to be intelligible to nonphysicists. So also is most of paper 16… which is concerned with the problem of apparent action at a distance.” (Pg. viii)
He notes, “The question at issue is the famous ‘reduction of the wave packet.’ There are, ultimately, no mechanical arguments for this process, and the arguments that are actually used may well called ‘moral.’ … Thus, if the morality of measurements of macroscopic pointer readings is granted, there is no real ambiguity in practice in applying quantum mechanics. One must simply understand well enough the structure of the systems involved, including the instruments, and workout the consequences. This situation is not peculiar to quantum mechanics. Moreover, we are readily disposed to accept the moral character of observing macroscopic pointers, for we feel convinced from common experience that they are not much changed in state by being looked at, and the moral process is in an obvious sense minimal. Thus, the basis or practical quantum mechanics seems secure. This is just as well, in view of its magnificent success, and of the fact that there is no real competitor in sight.” (Pg. 22, 24)
He concludes at the end of one paper, “These considerations, in our opinion, lead inescapably to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is, at the best, incomplete. We look forward to a new theory which can refer meaningfully to events in a given system without requiring ‘observation’ by another system. The critical test cases requiring this conclusion are systems containing consciousness and the universe as a whole… it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded. In this it is like all theories made by man. But to an unusual extent its ultimate fate is apparent in its internal structure. It carries in itself the seeds of its own destruction.” (Pg. 26-27)
He observes, “So the [quantum] theory is fundamentally about the results of ‘measurements,’ and therefore presupposes … a ‘measurer’ (or subject). Now must this subject include a person? Or was there already some such subject-object distinction before the appearance of life in the universe?... Is ‘measurement’ something that occurs all at once?... And so on. The pioneers of quantum mechanics were not unaware of these questions, but quite rightly did not wait for agreed answers before developing the theory. They were entirely justified by results. The vagueness of the postulates in no way interferes with the miraculous accuracy of the calculations. Whenever necessary a little more of the world can be incorporated into the object… It would be foolish to expect that the next basic development in theoretical physics will yield an accurate and final theory. But it is interesting to speculate on the possibility that a future theory will not be INTRINSICALLY ambiguous and approximate… it should again become possible to say of a system not that such and such may be OBSERVED to be so but that such and such BE so.” (Pg. 40-41)
He states, “The continuing dispute about quantum measurement theory is not between people who disagree on the results of simple mathematical manipulations. Nor is it between people with different ideas about the actual practicality of measuring arbitrarily complicated observables. It is between people who view with different degrees of concern or complacency the following fact: so long as the wave packet reduction is an essential component, and so long as we do not know exactly when and how it takes over from the Schrödinger equation, we do not have an exact and unambiguous formulation of our most fundamental physical theory.” (Pg. 51)
Of the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of QM by Hugh Everett, he comments, “we raise here a couple of questions about it. The first is based on this observation: there are infinitely many different expansions of type ‘E,’ corresponding to the infinitely many complete sets… Is there then an additional multiplicity of universe corresponding in the infinitely many ways of expanding, as well as that corresponding to the infinitely many terms in each expansion?... The second question… [is]: if instrument readings are to be given such a fundamental role should we not be told more exactly what an instrument reading is, or indeed, an instrument, or a storage unit in a memory, or whatever?... I think that fundamental physical theory should be so formulated that such artificial divisions are manifestly inessential. In my opinion Everett has not given such a formulation---and de Broglie has.” (Pg. 96-97)
He says, “That the theory is supposed to apply fundamentally to the world as a whole requires ultimately that any ‘observers’ be included in the system. This raises no particular problem so long as they are conceived as not essentially different from computers, equipped perhaps with ‘random’ number generators. Then everything is in fact predetermined at the fundamental level… To include creatures with free will would require some development, and here the de Broglie-Bohm version might develop differently from the usual approach… That the guiding wave, in the general case, propagates not in ordinary three-space but in a multidimensional-configuration space is the origin of the notorious ‘nonlocality’ of quantum mechanics. It is a merit of the de Broglie-Bohm version to bring this out so explicitly that it cannot be ignored.” (Pg. 115)
He points out, “Cosmologists… must find the usual interpretive rules of quantum mechanics a bit frustrating… It would seem that the theory is exclusively concerned with ‘results of measurement’ and has nothing to say about anything else. When the ‘system’ is the whole world where is the ‘measurer’ to be found?... What exactly qualifies some subsystems to play this role? Was the world wave function waiting to jump for thousands of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some more highly qualified measurer---with a Ph.D.? If the theory is to apply to anything but idealized laboratory operations, are we not obliged to admit that more or less ‘measurement-like’ processes are going on more or less all the time more or less everywhere?” (Pg. 117)
Returning to the Everett/DeWitt ‘many universe’ concept, he states, “In the usual theory it is supposed that only one of the possible results of a measurement is actually realized on a given occasion, and the wave function is ‘reduced’ accordingly. But Everett introduced the idea that ALL possible outcomes are realized every time, each in a different edition of the universe, which is therefore continually multiplying to accommodate all possible outcomes of every measurement… Now it seems to me that this multiplication of universes is extravagant, and serves no real purpose in the theory, and can simply be dropped without repercussions… To have multiplied universes, to realize all possible configurations of particles, would have seemed grotesque.” (Pg. 133-134)
He asserts, “It is important to note that the limited degree to which DETERMINISM plays a role in the EPR argument, it is not assumed but INFERRED. What is held sacred is the principle of ‘local causality’---or ‘no action at a distance.’ … It is remarkably difficult to get this point across, that determinism is not a PRESUPPOSITION of the analysis. There is a widespread and erroneous conviction that for Einstein determinism was always THE sacred principle. The quotability of his famous ‘God does not play dice’ has not helped this respect. Among those who had great difficulty in seeing Einstein’s position was Born.” (Pg. 143)
He clarifies, “let me argue against a myth… that quantum theory had undone somehow the Copernican revolution. From those who made that revolution we learned that the world is more intelligible when we do not imagine ourselves to be at the center of it. Does not quantum theory again place ‘observers’… us… at the center of the picture?... from some popular presentations the general public could get the impression that the very existence of the cosmos depends on our being here to observe the observables… I see no evidence that it is so in the success of contemporary quantum theory. So I think it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is integrated into modern atomic physics. Or that ‘information’ is the real stuff of physical theory. It seems to me irresponsible to suggest that technical features of contemporary theory were anticipated by the saints of ancient religions… by introspection.” (Pg. 170)
Of the Many Worlds Interpretation [MWI], he observes, “The MWI is sometimes put forward as a working out of the hypothesis: the wavefunction is everything, there is nothing else… But here the authors, in my opinion, are mistaken… It is easy to understand the attraction … for journalists, trying to hold the attention of the man in the street. The opposite of a truth is also a truth! Scientists say that matter is not possible without mind! All possible worlds are actual worlds! Wow! And the journalists can write these things with good consciences, for things like this have indeed been said, out of working hours, by great physicists… As regards mind, I am fully convinced that it has a central place in the ultimate nature of reality. But… The ‘many worlds interpretation’ seems to me … an extravagantly vague hypothesis. I could almost dismiss it as silly… it would be worthwhile, I think, to formulate some precise version of it … And the existence of all possible worlds may make us more comfortable about the existence of our own world, which seems to be in some ways a highly improbable one… To what extent are these possible worlds fictions? They are like literary fiction in that they are free inventions of the human mind. In theoretical physics sometimes the inventor knows from the beginning that the work is fiction, for example when it deals with a simplified world in which space has only one or two dimensions instead of three.” (Pg. 193-195)
And of course, his famous statement in ‘Are There Quantum Jumps?’: “the paper so 1955 ends, rather lamely, with the admission that Schrödinger does not see how, for the present, to account for particle tracks in track chambers; nor, more generally, for the definiteness, the particularity, of the world of experience, as compared with the indefiniteness, the waviness, of the wave function. It is the problem that he had had … with his cat. He thought that she could not be both dead and alive. But the wavefunction showed no such commitment, superposing the possibilities. Either the wavefunction, as given by the Schrödinger equation ,is not everything, or it is no right.” (Pg. 201)
These papers will be of great interest to those studying quantum mechanics, and particularly its historical development.
Read
June 23, 2025Wonderful collection of interesting papers. Some of them are mainly algebraic proofs, while some others delve deeper into the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics.
John Bell does a good job convincing the reader as to why a basic understanding of quantum physics is necessary to further explain modern physical phenomena.
There is considerable focus on the language used, and instead of coming across as pedantic, it serves to show the importance of the pitfalls in certain preconceived notions and how one might overcome them.
John Bell does a good job convincing the reader as to why a basic understanding of quantum physics is necessary to further explain modern physical phenomena.
There is considerable focus on the language used, and instead of coming across as pedantic, it serves to show the importance of the pitfalls in certain preconceived notions and how one might overcome them.
February 16, 2022
John Stewart Bell was the scientist who devised an empirical test for Entanglement.
Entanglement is a bizarre and novel feature of QM, first proposed by Schrödinger, who was himself inspired by others, notably Einstein. Entanglement was later experimentally observed. Bell would have surely won a Nobel Prize, but for his untimely death.
Bell also had keen intuitions as a philosopher, although he would not express this as such. (Rather, he would claim that physicists should be "professional" in their thinking - he would have no truck with Bohr's "complementarity" for instance.)
In consequence, Bell despised the Copenhagen School, according to which scientists should no longer attempt to understand reality. Copenhagenites argued that reality was literally "unspeakable": scientists cannot meaningfully talk about it. Bell thought that it was the Copenhagen School that was "unspeakable" - in the derogatory sense.
This collection of Bell's most important papers on the foundations of QM is full of sharp intellect and wit. The latter is exemplified in the wordplay described above. I cannot help re-reading Bell's papers without smiling, and often he makes me laugh out loud.
Entanglement is a bizarre and novel feature of QM, first proposed by Schrödinger, who was himself inspired by others, notably Einstein. Entanglement was later experimentally observed. Bell would have surely won a Nobel Prize, but for his untimely death.
Bell also had keen intuitions as a philosopher, although he would not express this as such. (Rather, he would claim that physicists should be "professional" in their thinking - he would have no truck with Bohr's "complementarity" for instance.)
In consequence, Bell despised the Copenhagen School, according to which scientists should no longer attempt to understand reality. Copenhagenites argued that reality was literally "unspeakable": scientists cannot meaningfully talk about it. Bell thought that it was the Copenhagen School that was "unspeakable" - in the derogatory sense.
This collection of Bell's most important papers on the foundations of QM is full of sharp intellect and wit. The latter is exemplified in the wordplay described above. I cannot help re-reading Bell's papers without smiling, and often he makes me laugh out loud.
August 8, 2013
برای کلنجار رفتن با فلسفه مکانیک کوانتومی عالی است
September 16, 2024
The most comedic and clear presentation of the foundational problems of our best physical theory.
"The only possibility of further analysis offered by quantum mechanics is to incorporate still more of the world into the quantum mechanical system (...). Especially from the theorist's point of view such a development is very pertinent. For him the experiment may be said to start with the printed proposal and to end with the issue of the report. For him the laboratory, the experimenter, the administration, and the editorial staff of the Physical Review, are all just part of the instrumentation."
"The only possibility of further analysis offered by quantum mechanics is to incorporate still more of the world into the quantum mechanical system (...). Especially from the theorist's point of view such a development is very pertinent. For him the experiment may be said to start with the printed proposal and to end with the issue of the report. For him the laboratory, the experimenter, the administration, and the editorial staff of the Physical Review, are all just part of the instrumentation."
May 27, 2020
A wonderful peak into the mind of matter through the eyes of a true genius. This book made my mind quake.
July 29, 2021
Muy técnico, pero las partes más divulgativas, deliciosas.
https://liblit.com/j-s-bell-lo-decibl...
https://liblit.com/j-s-bell-lo-decibl...
September 1, 2016
Don't get the Kindle version
This is an excellent book. John S. Bell had one of the most subtle minds among 20th century physicists, and this book provides a v window into that mind.
Unfortunately, the formulas he provides in his essays are unreadable in the Kindle version. Were it not for this, I would have given the book five stars instead of four. This is not the only book that Amazon has messed up in the same manner. They need to find a way to present technical in readable format on the Kindle. I recommend getting the paper version of this book, but not the Kindle version.
By the way, Bell's analysis of the rocket ship thought experiment was 100% correct. The trick is to account for relativity of simultaneity. Both rocket motors fire at the same moment in the observer's reference frame, so the distance between the rockets remains constant in that frame, but the rocket motors do not fire at the same time in the string's reference frame.
https://sites.google.com/site/amateur...
This is an excellent book. John S. Bell had one of the most subtle minds among 20th century physicists, and this book provides a v window into that mind.
Unfortunately, the formulas he provides in his essays are unreadable in the Kindle version. Were it not for this, I would have given the book five stars instead of four. This is not the only book that Amazon has messed up in the same manner. They need to find a way to present technical in readable format on the Kindle. I recommend getting the paper version of this book, but not the Kindle version.
By the way, Bell's analysis of the rocket ship thought experiment was 100% correct. The trick is to account for relativity of simultaneity. Both rocket motors fire at the same moment in the observer's reference frame, so the distance between the rockets remains constant in that frame, but the rocket motors do not fire at the same time in the string's reference frame.
https://sites.google.com/site/amateur...
April 8, 2016
John Bell was a true genius. It is a shame he is not better known to the general public the way Einstein, Schrödinger, and Bohr are. This volume reprints Bell's papers, so clearly written. He was a real master.
April 27, 2016
The book contains the collection of interesting papers by John Bell. Some papers highlight interesting points about the philosophy of quantum mechanics. However, as a person with limited knowledge of quantum mechanics, I found most papers to be too technical.
Read
December 8, 2009i've read many of the papers in this volume, but not all. bell is sort of like the godfather of the current foundational inquiries in QM. this is kind of like the bible of my field.
Read
April 8, 2013Da consultazione
June 24, 2013
Bell's important papers on quantum philosophy with minor edits by the author and a useful introduction on how best to read the collection.
Want to read
August 4, 2016Warning: learn non-relativistic quantum mechanics before reading this
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews