(Go down to the bottom of all the reviews to see comments by students who have used this book as a text in a course for liberal arts students.)
Joel Nisson on Amazon Review
We consider this a particularly sound reader-review. It’s by Joel Nisson and posted on Amazon.com.
(Professional reviews, and our response to some, follow.)
I just finished reading Quantum Enigma and it has left me stunned.
Although I am sure many folks would not agree, I think the topic of this book examines the most important questions facing us humans — the fundamental nature of consciousness and “reality”, and how the two interact. The authors explain how quantum theory clearly shows that microscopic particles behave in a way that does not “make sense”. Not only can those particles exist in two places at once, but the theory shows that they only exist when observed by something or someone. And since our everyday macroscopic objects are theoretically made up of those tiny particles, what does that mean about the chair I am sitting on? Is it there only because I am here? As stated on page 156, “There is no way to interpret quantum theory without in some way addressing consciousness.”
This is not a “pop-quantum” book like the Tao of Physics or The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Nor does it present nonsensical extrapolations of quantum theory to spiritual phenomena, as in the “What the Bleep…” movie. But it does explore realms where most physics text books do not go — the juncture of physics and philosophy. It shines a bright light on physicists’ “skeleton in the closet”, the enigmatic meaning of quantum theory.
The book is written in a friendly and entertaining manner, without sacrificing depth or seriousness. I enjoyed the photos of the great minds of quantum theory—Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, etc—the guys who knew from the start that quantum theory required a different world view.
It may be true, in some sense, that nothing exists unless and until “observed”! How can that possibly be? The authors don’t provide an answer, but the beauty of this book for me was the courageous and competent way in which it asks the questions. And they freely admit that “The more deeply you think about quantum mechanics, the more strange it seems.” No kidding.
–Joel Nisson
American Journal of Physics Review
The following review appeared in American Journal of Physics, March 2007. The reviewer was N. David Mermin, emeritus professor of Physics at Cornell University, and a frequent commentator on quantum mechanics. (Our response to this review is below it.)
Does quantum mechanics give consciousness a special role to play in our description of the physical world? Opinions range all over the map. I myself would say yes, but in a rather limited sense: the laws of physics are conceptual tools we have discovered in our collective efforts to impose coherence on how the world impinges on us, and ultimately the world gets through to each of us only through our conscious perceptions. This, of course, is as true of classical physics as it is of quantum physics. What makes quantum physics special is that it forces us (or ought to force us) to acknowledge this to be the character of physical law, while in classical physics we could (and did) fool ourselves into thinking that the abstractions we created to help us organize our perceptions had an independent existence of their own.
Take space-time, for example. We organize our perceptions into events, and for many purposes it is illuminating to represent those events as points in an abstract four-dimensional continuum. This is so useful that most of us reify this abstract scheme, believing that we inhabit a world that is such a four- (or, for a few of us, ten-) dimensional continuum. The reification of abstract time and space goes so far back in human history that it’s easy to miss the intellectual sleight of hand. The reification of electric and magnetic fields is more recent but also came to be taken for granted, until it started to unravel (for some of us) with the arrival of quantum electrodynamics. The strongest hints of how we have been fooling ourselves emerge when we try to reify quantum states, and thereby run into “the measurement problem” and “quantum nonlocality.”
Quantum phenomena have finally brought home (or should have brought home) to us that the purpose of physical law is, as Niels Bohr so succinctly put it, “only to track down, so far as it is possible, relations between the manifold aspects of our experience.” That experience is, by its very nature, conscious experience. It is only in this profoundly philosophical sense that quantum mechanics has led physics to an encounter with consciousness.
At least that’s how I look at it these days. Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner take another view. In Quantum Enigma they argue that in quantum mechanics, consciousness plays a new and important role as “the awareness that appears to affect physical phenomena.” (I don’t believe the phrase “appears to” is meant to be a crucial reservation here, but I could be wrong.)
Setting aside for the moment the “physics encounters consciousness” part of their story, I would say that Rosenblum and Kuttner have produced a readable and quite original nontechnical introduction to quantum mechanics for the general reader. Their book is based on a course for nonscientists, given over the past decade at UC Santa Cruz. They tell us it is now the most popular course in their physics department, and it’s easy to understand why. Santa Cruz is the home of “History of Consciousness” as an academic discipline. Within this setting Rosenblum and Kuttner manage to convey much of the exquisite subtlety of quantum mechanics without ever resorting to an equation. Their treatment of two-slit interference ranks right up there with (but differs interestingly from) Feynman’s famous “comes in lumps” approach, and their nontechnical description of Bell’s theorem is one of the best I’ve seen, and by far the least mathematical.
Admirably, in view of their subtitle, they not only steer clear of, but explicitly deplore, the kind of superficial new-age mysticism that so notoriously afflicts popular expositions of quantum physics, warning the reader that “in dealing with the mysteries of quantum mechanics, we walk the edge of a slippery slope.” Pointedly, they call for physicists to be more willing to discuss the enigmatic features of the quantum theory in introductory courses as an “antidote for sensationalistic, misleading treatments of the implications of quantum mechanics.”
My major reservation is that Rosenblum and Kuttner exaggerate the role of consciousness in physical phenomena and downplay, or ignore altogether, the views of those who have tried to exorcise this skeleton from the closet of science. These are subtle and highly debatable issues that are, however, at least as susceptible to nontechnical exposition as the features of quantum mechanics the authors have devoted their considerable expository skills to. If they had given a more balanced and accurate presentation of the spectrum of opinions on the role of conscious perception in quantum mechanics, this could have been one of the great nontechnical expositions of quantum physics.
But the view that quantum states are states of knowledge and not objective features of the systems they describe, promoted by Werner Heisenberg, advocated explicitly by Rudolf Peierls, and, more recently, eloquently expanded on by Carlton Caves, Christopher Fuchs, and Ruediger Schack, is not mentioned among the nine different interpretations of quantum mechanics surveyed in Chap. 14. On the contrary, the reader is assured that quantum states are real states of affairs. “In some very real sense, the wavefunction of an object is the object.” Or, less guardedly, “ `The wavefunction of the atom’ is a synonym for `the atom.’ ”
Taking the change of state that accompanies acquisition of knowledge of an object to be a change in the object itself is a major step—I would have said the major step—toward taking conscious awareness to be capable of affecting physical phenomena. So by not mentioning the view that quantum states are states of knowledge, and encouraging their readers to view quantum states as states of reality, Rosenblum and Kuttner have stacked the deck in favor of an active physical role for conscious awareness.
Outright exaggerations of the role of consciousness occur in the form of a couple of lengthy parables. The first sets the stage, early in the book; the other, towards the end, serves as a kind of summary. In both stories, a magician-like figure reveals one of two mutually incompatible sets of phenomena, in response to a visitor’s conscious decision about which set to ask for. The punch line of both parables—that consciousness can affect physical phenomena—is undermined by the fact that in the real world, between making the conscious decision and observing the phenomenon, one must set up a physical probe whose detailed features depend on that decision. But in telling the parables, Rosenblum and Kuttner barely hint at the necessity for such physical intervention. They offer disclaimers that what happens in the parables “can’t be demonstrated in the real world,” but it is not clear whether they mean this merely as a matter of scale (macroscopic versus microscopic), or because the parables are caricatures of actual experiments. These parables, if true, would provide the only irrefutable examples in the book of consciousness playing a direct role in physical phenomena. But they are fictitious.
So I would call this a fine but flawed presentation of quantum mechanics for the general reader. The flaw is in the one-sided and misleading (or at least ambiguous) treatment of the role of conscious perception in quantum physics. Perhaps a second edition can do a better job with this fascinating, subtle, and highly contentious issue. It would be wonderful to have an unqualifiedly fine nontechnical exposition of quantum mechanics, and Rosenblum and Kuttner have demonstrated that they are up to the task.
Our response to Mermin’s review of Quantum Enigma
We much appreciate Mermin’s many favorable comments on our book. This one even goes to our heads:
“…Rosenblum and Kuttner manage to convey much of the exquisite subtlety of quantum mechanics without ever resorting to an equation. Their treatment of two-slit interference ranks right up there with (but differs interestingly from) Feynman’s famous “comes in lumps” approach, and their nontechnical description of Bell’s theorem is one of the best I’ve seen, and by far the least mathematical.”
Mermin’s “major reservation” about our book is that we “…exaggerate the role of consciousness in physical phenomena…” and ignore entirely the view that “quantum states are states of knowledge and not objective features of the system they describe…”
While Mermin accuses us of exaggeration, we plead guilty to strong emphasis. The mysteries posed by quantum mechanics are too frequently evaded, or even denied, in teaching quantum mechanics. This leaves the real mysteries to be distorted and exploited by pseudoscientists. We did not intend a neutral book; our book’s first sentence is, “This is a controversial book.” There are, in fact, few neutral treatments of the interpretations of quantum mechanics anywhere. As Mermin says, these are “subtle and highly debatable issues,” and “opinions range all over the map.” This is increasingly true today, and our treatment is not out of line with many on that map.
The actual experimental facts we present in our book and the explanations within quantum theory we provide are completely undisputed. It’s the meaning beyond physics on which “opinions are all over the map.” We don’t hide our bias, but we bring the reader to the boundary where experts not only disagree, but where the expertise of physicists is no longer uniquely relevant. Readers are invited to puzzle for themselves.
We do, however, review nine different interpretations of quantum mechanics and devote a whole sympathetic chapter to the Copenhagen interpretation. Some versions of Copenhagen come close to Mermin’s favorite view: that “quantum states are states of knowledge.”
If quantum mechanics is about knowledge—as distinct from objective features of physical systems—hasn’t physics at least encountered consciousness? Isn’t the “knowledge” that quantum mechanics is supposedly about conscious knowledge? This knowledge interpretation of quantum mechanics therefore seems to fit well with our statement that physics has encountered consciousness. Prequantum physics, classical physics, was surely considered to be about the objective features of physical systems.
Mermin faults our saying—in emphasizing that quantum theory does not talk of an atom in addition to the wavefunction of the atom—that “The wavefunction of the atom is a synonym for ‘the atom.’” Admittedly, that’s a bald statement, a strong attitude, but not one unique to us. For example, in his Berkeley Physics Course text, Quantum Physics, Eyvind Wichmann writes: “…the de Broglie wave [the wavefunction] of an electron… is really a synonym for “electron.”
Mermin tempers his opinions with: “At least that’s how I look at it these days.” And in that connection he notes that his “…views on the interpretation of quantum mechanics have been influenced by writing a book on quantum computation for computer scientists which will appear in mid-2007.” A couple of decades ago, Mermin, playing on an Einstein objection to quantum mechanics wrote (of course without total seriousness, but alluding to the mystery of conscious observation): “We now know the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks.” (Journal of Philosophy, 1981).
Mermin suggests that in a second edition we give a more “balanced” treatment to “this fascinating, subtle, and highly contentious issue.” He also notes that in our discussion of our parables we should be clearer that they tell of impossible results. (We thought that was clear, but apparently not quite.) We’ll keep all that in mind. Thank you, David!
[The revised paperback edition actually does adopt several of Mermin’s suggestions. Thanks again, David!]
The Guardian Review of Quantum Enigma
The following review appeared in The Guardian (UK), Saturday, March 24, 2007
The shocking truth about quantum physics
Steven Poole on Quantum Enigma
Quantum Enigma, by Bruce Rosenblum & Fred Kuttner (Duckworth, £9.99)
Physics has an embarrassing problem. It affects to be a rigorous, hard-headed science, yet quantum mechanics, its most successful theory (it has never made a wrong prediction), seems to rub up inevitably against the problem of consciousness, and even quasi-mystical interpretations of the universe. Why? Because of the extremely odd fact that you can choose to demonstrate either of two contradictory possibilities simply by deciding which experiment to perform. And it is not just “observer-dependent” in a weak sense; by observing a photon, you cause the photon to be there and nowhere else. Before you observed it, it wasn’t just in some specific location of which you were ignorant, it was in no particular place at all, or in many places at once.
This excellent book provides patient and luminous explanations of the weirdness, and a critique of the normal pragmatic reply: “Whatever works.” The physicist-authors agree that it works (lasers, transistors and so on), but argue that the “enigma” of what it means has been swept under the carpet for too long. They end with a series of fascinating speculations as to what it might imply, if taken seriously, for theories of consciousness and cosmology. The physicist Niels Bohr said that if you are not shocked by quantum physics, you don’t understand it. Rosenblum and Kuttner have done a brilliant job of shocking the reader anew
The CHOICE Review of Quantum Enigma
The following review appeared in the May 2007 issue of CHOICE, a 35,000 circulation magazine for academic librarians:
Except in summary toward the end, the book does not, as the subtitle might suggest, posit anything about the nature of consciousness, the great mystery now being explored by neuroscientists and philosophers, among others. Instead it examines comprehensively the paradoxical consequences that abound in the Copenhagen Interpretation of classical quantum mechanics—specifically, the notion that conscious observation appears necessary in order to transform the superposition of disparate quantum states into the immutable reality of common experience. This is the “spooky” (the word is Einstein’s) world that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox confronted and hoped to disown but that the experimental confirmation of Bell’s Theorem validated. Thus, physicists continue to trust their magnificently precise, reliable quantum calculations while little heeding what one of them has referred to as the “skeleton in the closet,” namely, the theory’s putatively contradictory picture of the real. Rosenblum and Kuttner (both, physics, Univ. of California, Santa Cruz) are no dogmatists; rather, they at times seem anguished by the situation and invite readers to choose from among possible explanations that try to make sense of the seemingly nonsensical. Thoroughly engaging for both seasoned physicists and interested laypersons. Fascinating, important. Summing Up: Highly recommended.
General readers; upper-division undergraduates through professionals. — M. Schiff, CUNY College of Staten Island
The New Scientist Review
Below is an extract from a review in the New Scientist (August 19, 2006.).
One of the most scandalously bad misrepresentations of physics in recent years is the drama-documentary What the Bleep Do We Know? , released in 2004. The film promulgated the idea that according to quantum theory, you can change everyday reality simply by thinking about it. Depressingly, it is the fifth-biggest-grossing documentary in the US.
The irony here is that the true world revealed by quantum theory – which remains our best description of the microscopic world of atoms – is far wilder than anything in the movie. It is a world where an atom can be in two places at once – the equivalent of you being in London and Tokyo simultaneously. This is not some theoretical fantasy: it is possible to observe an atom in two places at once, or at least the consequences of this. It’s a world where one atom can influence another instantaneously even if they are on opposite sides of the universe.
This quantum weirdness is expounded clearly by physicists Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, who teach a course on these fundamental ideas at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Indeed, the bulk of their book Quantum Enigma serves as an entertaining primer on the nuts and bolts of quantum theory. However, what principally interests the authors is not quantum theory’s fantastically successful recipe for prediction, but what the theory “means”. This takes them to the boundary of physics and philosophy: the observer-created reality.
An atom does not travel through space along a single path with 100 per cent certainty as a planet does. Rather, it has a large number of possible paths open to it, each with a particular probability. When the atom is “observed”, one and only one of the possibilities is actualised. Thus, reality is created by observation. Here the authors make their most controversial assertion: that the observer must be conscious. Consciousness, they believe, is intimately tied up with quantum processes.
Many physicists think that the phenomenon of “decoherence” does away with the need for a conscious observer. Decoherence explains why an atom on its own can do many things at once, while entities composed of many atoms, such as humans, cannot. Some believe a conscious observer is not necessary for decoherence to take place. However, Rosenblum and Kuttner point out that while decoherence explains why you and I are never in two places at once, it does not explain why a single atom is in one place rather than another. For an atom to become fixed, a conscious observer is essential, they argue.
Rosenblum and Kuttner thus tie together two great mysteries: consciousness, and the “quantum enigma” of how reality coalesces out of the fog of quantum possibilities. They never spell out what they think the connection is, they only emphasise that it is an enigma at the heart of quantum theory that physicists must sooner or later confront head-on. They also remind us that we have not got to the bottom of quantum theory by a long chalk. We still need a new way of seeing and, as quantum philosopher John Bell said, “The new way of seeing will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us.”
Marcus Chown, New Scientist, August 19, 2006
Online Reviews of Quantum Enigma
Here are some extracts from online reviews (See also the comments on the Home Page).
Marie D. Jones (Curled Up With A Good Book at www.curledup.com)
Quantum Enigma offers some solid, well-researched discussion on how it just may be impossible to avoid linking the two {consciousness and quantum theory}for much longer, because the authors here tackle the matter with much to back up their claims in the way of hard science. This examination of the biggest quantum mystery, the role of the conscious observer, is both enlightening and entertaining, and pretty easy to read for those of you with little background in the QP world. The authors, both with backgrounds in physics, do a great service by writing about a very complex subject in a style that is really quite accessible to the novice. We get a good basic education on relativity theory, gravity, et al, but we also get introduced to the more intriguing aspects of the quantum world, namely entanglement and non-locality, and soon the authors are giving us solid examples of why consciousness should at least enter into the discussion. They clearly feel that the quantum enigma and the controversy over consciousness deserve real study, a position others in their field may not be bold enough to yet take. Quantum Enigma is a book that answers many questions, yet, like any good book should, raises even more.
William Orem (in Science & Theology News, online edition)
With a new book, Rosenblum and Kuttner hope to dispel all the nonsense that currently passes for deep thought because it has “quantum” attached to it. Their motivation is partly to clear the intellectual air – but partly to allow for some actual understanding of how philosophically important quantum mechanics actually is. This is why it is worth cutting through the quantum bunk that pervades contemporary pseudoscience. Something legitimately deep is going on here, and it involves the very fabric of reality.
Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty (Amazon.com)
First, I want assure readers who are not physicists, and even those who are not science-enabled, that they have nothing to fear in reading “Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness.” The book is written for the ordinary literate reader and no understanding of physics or general science is assumed by the authors (both physicists). And it is a fascinating read!
M. L Lamendola (Amazon.com)
Rosenblum and Kuttner don’t pretend to have pat answers. What they do is present a particular aspect of the enigma (there are several to look at) and seemingly rotate it around so you can see all sides of it. You’re often left with more questions than you started with, but that is apparently the point. And it puts you in good company—count among your co-questioners such celebrity physicists as Niels Bohr, Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, and Erwin Schrodinger.
Brothers Judd BrothersJudd.com
The authors not only tackle a topic that their peers would as soon keep quiet, but they do so in a manner that is eminently accessible to the layman. I admit to skipping some of the bits where the science got too thick for me, but, in my defense, they invite us to do so on occasion. Moreover, at the close of such stretches they reduce the discussion down to the most basic and clearly stated points.
[Quantum theory] tells us that physics’ encounter with consciousness, demonstrated for the small, applies to everything. And that “everything” can include the entire universe. Copernicus dethroned humanity from the cosmic center. Does quantum theory suggest that, in some mysterious sense, we are a cosmic center?
The answer is, obviously, “Yes.” Following along with the authors as they explain how science looped back around on itself and re-enthroned Man while disposing of Copernicus is more fun than a bag of Schrödinger’s cats. This is a must read.
Student Reviews
Below are some student comments on Quantum Enigma offered when it was used as a collateral text in a course in the 2006 spring term at the University of California at Santa Cruz.
Quantum Enigma was used at the University of California at Santa Cruz in the 2006 spring term as collateral reading in a physics course for non-science students that Kuttner taught. Students filled out an optional questionnaire with optional signature (not to be seen by instructor until grades were in).
To the statement: “I’d recommend this book to a friend…”
- 57 out of 68 responses checked “strongly” or “yes.” 7 “maybe,” 1 “no,” 2 no response.
To the statement: “I could basically understand…”
- 58 checked “all” or “mostly,” 7 “some,” 3 no response.
Signed “brief comments” from these students included:
- “Kept me up at night.”
- “Explains wonderful complexities in clear and simple language.”
- “I love the humor.”
- “My dad even enjoyed it.”
- “I have a few phil majors back home who can’t wait to borrow my book.”
- “The book has changed the way I look at life.”
- “I recommend that every undergraduate student read this book.”
- “For somebody with no physics background, this book was highly informative
- and constantly interesting.”
- “I’ve never written in the margins of a book so much.”
- “I have grasped quantum mechanics, but have lost some grip on reality.
- It’s kind of better this way.”
In this course we try to meet the “social responsibility” described in the link with that name on this website.
Quantum Enigma is scheduled for use in a course this spring semester in Cabrillo College, in Aptos, California.
It is also scheduled to be collateral reading in some other schools and Universities.