Oxford, May 22nd, 2019Dear Jonathan Swift,It is with great pleasure that I have finally decided to write to you about the fascinating and exhilarating adventures that Lemuel Gulliver experienced and that are recounted in Gulliver’s Travels.As I am a postgraduate researcher specialising in quantum mechanics at the Department of Physics (University of Oxford), Gulliver’s odyssey could not fail to catch my attention and sympathy.I am currently writing this letter from a quiet reading room locat...
Oxford, May 22nd, 2019Dear Jonathan Swift,It is with great pleasure that I have finally decided to write to you about the fascinating and exhilarating adventures that Lemuel Gulliver experienced and that are recounted in Gulliver’s Travels.As I am a postgraduate researcher specialising in quantum mechanics at the Department of Physics (University of Oxford), Gulliver’s odyssey could not fail to catch my attention and sympathy.I am currently writing this letter from a quiet reading room locat...
I have been interested in quantum mechanics or, synonymously, quantum physics since the very days when I first learned about them as a student. The initial impression was that of an immense mathematical beauty of the formalism of quantum mechanics. The second impression was the fantastic agreement of the theoretical predictions of quantum physics for experiments, and the third and somewhat surprising impression was that there was widespread disagreement about the interpretation of the new theory.
I have already written one play, Not Eureka, which explores one way in which theatre can give a voice to science. While not a traditional "science history" play, Not Eureka concerns, and I hope illuminates, several scientific experiments of historical significance.In my current research, I have continued to explore ways to incorporate science into theatre. My project is similar to Not Eureka in that I am engaged in writing a new, full-length play (City Lights, Receding), based on research and scientific in focus. However, the project is not a repeat of my previous work. Instead of recounting and clarifying already fairly well-established scientific concepts, City Lights, Receding is philosophical, speculative, in nature.My focus as a History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) major is in the philosophy of quantum physics. I find this particular area of physical-philosophical inquiry both appealing and dramatic. My play explores, in a dramatic, speculative way, the philosophical problems presented by modern physics, and the conflict between the classical and modern worlds.I completed a graduate seminar in the philosophy of quantum mechanics in fall 2007. Since then, I have pursued research independently into the philosophy of quantum mechanics, identifying specific areas within the topic useful to the development of my script. I have focused on theories of interpretation such as GRW, many-worlds and many-minds theories. I have also been reading as many science-based plays as I can get my hands on.Fall 2008 began my writing period. By the beginning of spring semester 2009, I had a draft in reading-ready form; a seated reading through the Theatre Arts department, directed by Regina Connolly and featuring Charlie Brown (Verdenmacher), Parag S. Gohel (Armin), Mary Heyne (Marian), Lily Junker (Brody), and Joe McGranaghan (Albert Albert), was performed from April 9-11, 2009. Based on the reading and the response of audience and theatre/HPS faculty to it, I plan to revise the script with the goal of eventually pursuing full production opportunities.
Mr Administrator,Dear colleagues,Ladies and gentlemen,“I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics”. This statement, made by physicist Richard Feynman, expresses a paradoxical truth about the scientific theory that revolutionised our understanding of Nature and made an extraordinary contribution to our means of acting on and gaining information about the world. In this lecture, I will discuss quantum physics with you by attempting to resolve this paradox. And if I don’...
Spring 2005, whilst sitting at my desk in the physics department at Leeds University, marking yet more exam papers, I was interrupted by a phone call. Interruptions were not such a surprise at the time, a few weeks previously I had published an article on quantum theory in the popular science magazine, New Scientist, and had since been inundated with all sorts of calls from the public. Most callers were very enthusiastic, clearly demonstrating a healthy appetite for more information on this fascinating topic, albeit occasionally one or two either hadn’t read the article, or perhaps had read into it a little too much. Comments ranging from ‘Can quantum mechanics help prevent my hair loss?’ to someone telling me that they had met their twin brother in a parallel Universe, were par for the course, and I was getting a couple of such questions each day. At Oxford we used to have a board for the most creative questions, especially the ones that clearly demonstrated the person had grasped some of the principles very well, but had then taken them to an extreme, and often, unbeknown to them, had violated several other physical laws on the way. Such questions served to remind us of the responsibility we had in communicating science – to make it clear and approachable but yet to be pragmatic. As a colleague of mine often said – sometimes working with a little physics can be more dangerous than working with none at all. ‘Hello Professor Vedral, my name is Jon Spooner, I’m a theatre director and I am putting together a play on quantum theory’, said the voice as I picked up the phone. ‘I am weaving elements of quantum theory into the play and we want you as a consultant to verify whether we are interpreting it accurately’. Totally stunned for at least a good couple of seconds, I asked myself, ‘This guy is doing what?’ Had I misheard? A play on quantum theory? Anyway it occurred to me that there might be an appetite for something like this, given how successful the production of Copenhagen, a play by Michael Freyn, had been a few years back.
June 1997, “Painting My Stripes” I am just returning from the library, where – completely by accident – I ran into and read an entertaining little article: A Peres, “Einstein, Gödel, Bohr,” Foundations of Physics 15 (2), 1985, 201–205. I was especially entertained by your closing line, “Any attempt to inject realism in physical theory is bound to lead to inconsistencies.” Do you have any other writings (beside the AJP paper with Zurek) where you expand upon the ideas presented in this? In connection to this, I have another question. If I recall correctly, you once told me that you finally came to grips (“interpretationally,” that is) with quantum mechanics in 1986. (Perhaps I have the year wrong, but that's part of the question.) Would you be willing to expand upon that point? In particular, was your arrived-at comfort founded upon the line I quote above? I suppose I ask these questions for several reasons, perhaps the strongest of which is a renewed dilettante interest in the foundations of quantum theory. Among other things, I am trying to plan (or dream up!) a talk for the Hull conference in September to be titled something like: “Quantum Information Theory's Implications for the Foundations of the Quantum as a Whole.” My own pet “idea for an idea” (as Wheeler would say) is that the quantum theoretical description – along with its Hilbert-space structure – is forced upon us when the information we have about a physical situation/system is of a certain variety.
Those defile the purity of mathematical and philosophical truthy who confound real quantities with their relations and sensible measures. —ISAAC NEWTON, Principia Before we say anything about quantum mechanics, let us take a quick look at the Newtonian (or ‘classical’) view of the physical universe. According to that view, nature consists of an enormous number of particles. When Newtonian physics is combined with the theory of the electromagnetic field, it becomes convenient to think of these particles as dimensionless (even if there is a kind of conceptual strain involved in trying to think of something as having a mass but not any size ), and as possessing electrical properties – negative charge, or positive charge, or neutrality. This leads to the well-known ‘solar system’ view of the atom – with the electrons whirling around the nucleons (neutrons and protons) just as the planets whirl around the sun. Out of atoms are built molecules; out of molecules, macroscopic objects, scaling from dust motes to whole planets and stars. These latter also fall into larger groupings – solar systems and galaxies – but these larger structures differ from the ones previously mentioned in being held together exclusively by gravitational forces. At every level, however, one has trajectories (ultimately that means the possibility of continuously tracing the movements of the elementary particles) and one has causality (ultimately that means the possibility of extrapolating from the history of the universe up to a given time to its whole sequence of future states).