Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physics World

The wow and the woo

Philip Moriarty

Published Jun 1, 2018• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

To say that I eagerly anticipated the arrival of my review copy of Jean Bricmont’s latest book, Quantum Sense and Nonsense , would be an understatement approaching “we physicists have maybe got one or two loose ends to tie up when it comes to interpreting quantum mechanics” proportions.
DOI
10.1088/2058-7058/31/6/33

Related papers

Interpreting the Quantum World

Asher Peres

This is an "Essay-Review" of a book with the same title, by Jeffrey Bub (Cambridge University Press, 1997).

arXiv:quant-ph/9711003•Nov 5, 1997•2 citations

Out of My Mind: A Cosmic Flow

Jeremy Bernstein

Not long ago I was invited to dinner to meet a young artist who, I was told, had recently developed a strong interest in physics, especially in the physics of elementary particles my own field of research. Ever eager to bridge the yawning crevasse that, it appears, separates the two cultures coupled with the prospect of an excellent meal I accepted at once. Upon my arrival, it turned out that the young man in question was accompanied by an attractive girlfriend and that she too had a burgeoning interest in the physics of elementary particles. This intriguing concidence, it developed, did not have its origin in any of the more recent discoveries in our discipline, but rather in a book they had read that, according to them, demonstrated that elementary particle physics provided a scientific basis for many of the revelations of Eastern mysticism. Could I, they wondered, enlighten them further on this remarkable development? Their faces, however, fell to half-mast when I confessed that (a) I had never heard of the source of their inspirationone Fritjof Capra and that (b) I had not read his chef d'oeuvre, The Tao of Physics, which, they assured me, was the book in which this reconciliation was detailed. They were further discomfited when I remarked that for the sake of Eastern mystic philosophy I hoped it wasn't true. In fact, I added, if I were a Tibetan monk or the swami in an ashram in New Delhi and if Fritjof Capra or anyone else came to my door clutching the latest copy of the Physical Review

•Jan 1, 2016•0 citations

Quantum Sense and Nonsense

Jean Bricmont

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2017•19 citations

Are de Broglie and Bohm right?: Jean Bricmont: Making sense of quantum mechanics. Berlin: Springer, 2016, x+331pp, €52.99 HB, € 41.64 ebook

Michel Ghins

Back in 1964, Richard Feynman famously stated that "Nobody understands quantum mechanics."Indeed, despite its impressive empirical success, quantum mechanics (QM) remains the most perplexing and mind-boggling theory ever produced by humans.In his clear and thought-provoking book, Jean Bricmont advocates the merits of "the de Broglie-Bohm theory" and forcefully argues that it provides an intelligible picture of the quantum world out there.Being aware, however, that the de Broglie-Bohm theory is not immune from difficulties, the author acknowledges that understanding QM is an "unfinished story" (292). AQ1After a short introductory chapter, Bricmont discusses in Chapter 2 what he calls the "first mystery" of quantum mechanics, namely "interference and superpositions."Spin measurements with Mach -Zehnder interferometers ( § 2.2) show that the quantum state is a superposition of two incompatible states (spin up and spin down).When a measurement is takenperformed, the quantum state instantly collapses into one of the two states.Schrödinger's celebrated cat thought experiment was meant to show that believing in the existence of a superposition of states "cat alive" and "cat dead" before opening the box, simply is absurd (38).According to standard QM the evolution of 1✉ 1 Page 1 sur 5 e.

•Jan 1, 2017•0 citations

What's wrong with this elegance, March 2000

N. David Mermin

A little while ago I was asked to give a lecture at the very elegant Weisman Art Museum in Minneapolis on an assigned title: “Elegance in Physics.” As I get older, the things I'm asked to do get stranger, so I wasn't surprised. Alarmingly, the older I get, the stronger is my inclination to do the peculiar ones. So I accepted the invitation, and soon found myself brooding, not, as I had imagined, about the glory of the eternal verities, but about the highly contentious nature of elegance in physics. Here is the first such difference of opinion I came upon. In a lecture at Fermilab with a title similar to the one I was given, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar talked about “harmoniously organizing a domain of science with order, pattern, and coherence.” He cited five examples of such pinnacles of exposition, one of them being Paul Dirac's celebrated book, Principles of Quantum Mechanics. “The translucence of the eternal splendor through material phenomena,” Chandrasekhar remarked, “[is] made iridescent in these books.” Keeping that iridescent translucence firmly in mind, consider the following remarks of the eminent mathematician Jean Dieudonné: When one arrives at the mathematical theories on which quantum mechanics is based, one realizes that the attitude of certain physicists in the handling of these theories truly borders on delirium … One has to ask oneself what remains in the mind of a student who has absorbed this unbelievable accumulation of nonsense, real hogwash! It would appear that today's physicists are only at ease in the vague, the obscure, and the contradictory [1]. What is Dieudonné talking about? He is addressing the approach to quantum mechanics laid out in Dirac's book. Elegance in physics is as much in the eye of the beholder as it is in any other field of human endeavor. Dirac's formulation appeals to physicists because, by being a little vague and ambiguous about its precise mathematical structure, it enables them to grasp and manipulate the physical content of the theory with a clarity and power that would be greatly diminished if one were distracted by certain complicating but fundamentally uninteresting mathematical technicalities. But for mathematicians, those minor technical matters lie at the heart of the subject. Quantum mechanics becomes ill-formulated and grotesque if it does not properly rest on impeccable mathematical foundations.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 5, 2016•0 citations

Common Sense and a “Wigner-Dirac” Approach to Quantum Mechanics

Peter Forrest

The Monist•Jan 1, 1997•2 citations
Not long ago I was invited to dinner to meet a young artist who, I was told, had recently developed a strong interest in physics, especially in the physics of elementary particles my own field of research. Ever eager to bridge the yawning crevasse that, it appears, separates the two cultures coupled with the prospect of an excellent meal I accepted at once. Upon my arrival, it turned out that the young man in question was accompanied by an attractive girlfriend and that she too had a burgeoning interest in the physics of elementary particles. This intriguing concidence, it developed, did not have its origin in any of the more recent discoveries in our discipline, but rather in a book they had read that, according to them, demonstrated that elementary particle physics provided a scientific basis for many of the revelations of Eastern mysticism. Could I, they wondered, enlighten them further on this remarkable development? Their faces, however, fell to half-mast when I confessed that (a) I had never heard of the source of their inspirationone Fritjof Capra and that (b) I had not read his chef d'oeuvre, The Tao of Physics, which, they assured me, was the book in which this reconciliation was detailed. They were further discomfited when I remarked that for the sake of Eastern mystic philosophy I hoped it wasn't true. In fact, I added, if I were a Tibetan monk or the swami in an ashram in New Delhi and if Fritjof Capra or anyone else came to my door clutching the latest copy of the Physical Review
Back in 1964, Richard Feynman famously stated that "Nobody understands quantum mechanics."Indeed, despite its impressive empirical success, quantum mechanics (QM) remains the most perplexing and mind-boggling theory ever produced by humans.In his clear and thought-provoking book, Jean Bricmont advocates the merits of "the de Broglie-Bohm theory" and forcefully argues that it provides an intelligible picture of the quantum world out there.Being aware, however, that the de Broglie-Bohm theory is not immune from difficulties, the author acknowledges that understanding QM is an "unfinished story" (292). AQ1After a short introductory chapter, Bricmont discusses in Chapter 2 what he calls the "first mystery" of quantum mechanics, namely "interference and superpositions."Spin measurements with Mach -Zehnder interferometers ( § 2.2) show that the quantum state is a superposition of two incompatible states (spin up and spin down).When a measurement is takenperformed, the quantum state instantly collapses into one of the two states.Schrödinger's celebrated cat thought experiment was meant to show that believing in the existence of a superposition of states "cat alive" and "cat dead" before opening the box, simply is absurd (38).According to standard QM the evolution of 1✉ 1 Page 1 sur 5 e.
A little while ago I was asked to give a lecture at the very elegant Weisman Art Museum in Minneapolis on an assigned title: “Elegance in Physics.” As I get older, the things I'm asked to do get stranger, so I wasn't surprised. Alarmingly, the older I get, the stronger is my inclination to do the peculiar ones. So I accepted the invitation, and soon found myself brooding, not, as I had imagined, about the glory of the eternal verities, but about the highly contentious nature of elegance in physics. Here is the first such difference of opinion I came upon. In a lecture at Fermilab with a title similar to the one I was given, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar talked about “harmoniously organizing a domain of science with order, pattern, and coherence.” He cited five examples of such pinnacles of exposition, one of them being Paul Dirac's celebrated book, Principles of Quantum Mechanics. “The translucence of the eternal splendor through material phenomena,” Chandrasekhar remarked, “[is] made iridescent in these books.” Keeping that iridescent translucence firmly in mind, consider the following remarks of the eminent mathematician Jean Dieudonné: When one arrives at the mathematical theories on which quantum mechanics is based, one realizes that the attitude of certain physicists in the handling of these theories truly borders on delirium … One has to ask oneself what remains in the mind of a student who has absorbed this unbelievable accumulation of nonsense, real hogwash! It would appear that today's physicists are only at ease in the vague, the obscure, and the contradictory [1]. What is Dieudonné talking about? He is addressing the approach to quantum mechanics laid out in Dirac's book. Elegance in physics is as much in the eye of the beholder as it is in any other field of human endeavor. Dirac's formulation appeals to physicists because, by being a little vague and ambiguous about its precise mathematical structure, it enables them to grasp and manipulate the physical content of the theory with a clarity and power that would be greatly diminished if one were distracted by certain complicating but fundamentally uninteresting mathematical technicalities. But for mathematicians, those minor technical matters lie at the heart of the subject. Quantum mechanics becomes ill-formulated and grotesque if it does not properly rest on impeccable mathematical foundations.