How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog

If dog treats appeared out of empty space in the middle of a kitchen, a human would freak out, but a dog would take it in stride [... dogs] always expect treats to appear at any moment, for no obvious reason. [...] If you can look at the world the way a dog does, as an endless source of surprise

and wonder, then quantum mechanics will seem a lot more approachable.

Chad Orzel enlists his German shepherd, Emmy, to provide that perspective in How to Teach Physics to Your Dog. Each chapter opens with Emmy voicing some problem (usually related to improving her chances of nabbing a squirrel or bunnie or treat) that gives Chad a jumping-off point into physics concepts like particle-wave duality, uncertainty, measurement, teleportation. It’s a cute device but it’s also effective -- alternating between theory and man-dog conversation both lightens the content and applies it to the everyday.

I endured a year of classical physics in college but came to this book after having developed an adulthood interest in quantum physics. I came away much more aware of the concepts involved, but only slightly more in command of them. (Maybe that’s the way with physics, little by little?) But to be clear: this is a physics book and Orzel writes for a pop-sci physics audience: “Most people wouldn’t know a wavefunction if they tripped over one, but almost everyone has heard of the uncertainty principle…” If that’s not you, or if you’re not interested in photons, probability, and polarization, this is not the book for you. If that is you, enjoy! -- Orzel’s approach is positive and curious, and Emmy is just plain fun.

Show Less

12 more

LibraryThing member mckait

Since reading The Dancing Wu Li Masters an Overview of the New Physics by Gary Zukav many years ago, I have been fascinated by
Quantum Physics. I do not claim to understand it, but I am intrigued.

It makes perfect sense to me that there is not only order in the universe, thus in everyday life, but

chaos as well. I have read several books on the subject, and always find myself nodding and saying to myself, yes! of course!

Orzel's book caught my attention immediately because of the dog. There is a dog on the cover, and a dog who is part of the book. This time quantum physics is presented as an explanation to the dog. I love dogs. I am intrigued by the subject, so whats not to like?

I found this book to be entertaining in it approach, and I fell immediately in love with Emmy the cutest smartest do in the world,
as she carefully explains.

This is not a book of humor. It is a book that approaches a serious and fascinating subject with humor and whimsy. Perfect! Read it. Really.. you won't be sorry/

Show Less

LibraryThing member JollyContrarian

Well, it certainly has a unique selling point.

A quixotic quest, you would think: rendering the world of quantum physics understandable for the layman - approached quixotically: by fabricating a dialogue between the author, a physics professor, and his rabbit-chasing, treat-loving Alsatian dog.

There

is something oddly Socratic about Orzal's interlocutions with Emmy the Alsatian. Only in the Dialogues, no-one says "that sounds ridiculous, Socrates". Emmy has no such qualms.

As a conceptual device it works as well as it can be expected to, though at times both Chad and Emmy expect too much of their readers. That is one smart dog.

Over the years I've read plenty of popular science treatments of quantum physics (more than your average bear, I dare say, but of course that's not to say I necessarily understood them), and I still found my eyes glazing over at some of the depth to which Orzal was obliged (or at any rate inclined) to descend in expounding quantum theory. Emmy stays with him throughout, and eggs him on.

I have always harboured suspicions about the scientific inviolability claimed of this sort of physics. Real, falsifiable empirical evidence seems in short supply (often being suspiciously forbidden by the very terms of the theory, or at least buried under many sedimentary layers of mathematical assumption) and quantum effects have a habit of conveniently being unobservable in any dimension meaningful to everyday life. Or vanishing (er, I mean, collapsing the wave function) when you try to measure them.

Which, to this old sceptic, gives them a religious sort of disposition - true by definition; true because smart men learned in arcane lore say so. (I should say I'm not alone in this view: properly credentialised physicists like Peter Woit and Lee Smolin have also expressed it).

That said, Orzal is no (ahem) dogmatist (indeed, trying to de-mystify the scriptures as he does makes him more like a sort of Lutheran reformer), and I think is prepared to admit of some missing links in the overall theory (I couldn't work out whether quantum entanglement, which is "non local", falsifies relativity or not).

Then again, the only practical upshot I could derive of all this colossally brain-contorting discipline is the possibility of "quantum computing" - apparently faster and cheaper than boring old silicon.

Orzal's main objective, finally arrived at in the closing chapter, is to debunk phoney new age baloney which purports to trade on quantum underpinnings - quantum healing, and that kind of thing. This is done effectively, but at some cost: by underlining the singular uselessness of quantum theory in every day volumes, velocities and quantities. Whenever it would come in handy (often, when chasing squirrels, as Emmy astutely observes), by its own theory, quantum effects would be unobservably minuscule.

Which makes this old goat wonder why we bother digging up the Swiss countryside and dropping trillions of dollars of supercooled electromagnets into it just to find another unobservable subatomic particle. Surely we can figure out whether quantum computing works by trying to building a quantum computer?

In the final analysis, and as other reviewers have said, I put this book down having a better general understanding of the gist of a number of really quite difficult concepts - enough to keep my end of the conversation up if sat next to a physicist at dinner - even if the details and implications below that remain entirely murky - and so in that regard, it is a tough job imaginatively and successfully done.

And, now matter how cute the device seems, you can't help but like the irrepressible Emmy, even if she does understand Schrodinger's indeterminacy better than I do.

Show Less

LibraryThing member fluteflute

I was initially slightly uneasy about this book. Throughout the first pages, topics I had previously encountered in formal education were presented: I wasn't sure that I'd understand them if I'd been encountering them for the first time. The books was presented in a carefully thought out manner,

with ten clearly defined chapters. As the book developed my initial doubts went away. The subject matter is not easy, but I finished the book feeling satisfied I had learnt something and that I was able to (at least partially) understand all of the material.

Before reading the book I was well aware that I am not a dog lover! But that didn't matter, the dog element didn't get in the way, and the two "characters" helped lighten the tone and make for a more enjoyable read.

Show Less

LibraryThing member Pyobon

Generally good clear descriptions of quantum physics in an accessible fashion. However in some respects the attempt to do this by teaching it to a dog was less than perfect. At times the links to the dog were effectively abandoned, at others the links and analogies were perhaps rather forced.

LibraryThing member FKarr

very good intro to quantum physics; surprisingly complex and thorough, not afraid to challenge the reader; especially nice detail regarding experiments

LibraryThing member JeremyPreacher

This had more physics and less dog that I could have asked for, but it was totally readable and fascinating. I don't have the background to comment on how accurate it is, but I would totally recommend it as a quick overview of the basic concepts in quantum physics.

LibraryThing member castiron

A very readable introduction to the current knowledge about quantum physics. The interludes with the dog both gave examples of the concepts at a simplified level and provided good in-book breaks from the more dense discussion (and let's face it; QM is complicated enough that even a popularized

version takes some brainpower to read).

Show Less

LibraryThing member Sarah_Beaudette

The best explanation I've found of quantum physics' basic principles for a lay lay lay person. You can infer from the title that this book does not belong on a doctoral candidate's Works Cited page. If, however, you've found yourself unable to recall the major foundations of quantum physics no

matter how many cute animated YouTube videos you've watched, you'll have no trouble after reading this. A humorous midpoint between a tome and a For Dummies, and a quick read.

Show Less

LibraryThing member Sarah_Beaudette

matter how many cute animated YouTube videos you've watched, you'll have no trouble after reading this. A humorous midpoint between a tome and a For Dummies, and a quick read.

Show Less

LibraryThing member Sarah_Beaudette

matter how many cute animated YouTube videos you've watched, you'll have no trouble after reading this. A humorous midpoint between a tome and a For Dummies, and a quick read.

Show Less

LibraryThing member DLMorrese

Quantum physics may still remain an unsolved mystery to me, for the most part, but I feel I understand some of its quirky aspects better now. I've read a few books for laymen on this subject, and the sad fact is that it may be simply so counter-intuitive that it my brain won't accept it. My 'that

don't make sense' filter seems to kick in. When I read such books, I keep stopping to question the findings and ask, "How could that be?" (Unfortunately, my math skills are inadequate to help me overcome this.) Still, somehow I feel there must be some underlying order in the universe, but, then again, perhaps not.
In any event, this book is a (supposedly) imagined conversation between a physics professor and his dog. I found it quite entertaining. Things I especially liked were the one Terry Pratchett reference (and footnotes)and the last chapter, which is about the charlatans and other profiteers who misuse the language of quantum physics to promote bogus things like free energy and magic healing. If you're fascinated by quantum and what it means, pick up this book. I can't say you'll understand quantum electrodynamics when you're done reading it, but you will be entertained and perhaps more knowledgeably confused, and, most importantly, less likely to be taken in by hucksters misusing the terms to sell quantum snake oil.

Show Less

LibraryThing member antao

“Uncertainty is not a statement about the limits of measurement, it’s a statement about the limits of reality. Asking for the precise position and momentum of a particle doesn’t even make sense, because those quantities do not exist. This fundamental uncertainty is a consequence of the dual

nature of quantum particles.”

In “How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog” by Chad Orzel

“CENTRAL PRINCIPLES OF QUANTUM MECHANICS:

1 – Wavefunctions: Every object in the universe is described by a quantum wavefunction;
2 – Allowed states: A quantum object can only be observed in one of a limited number of allowed states;
3 – Probability: The wavefunction of an object determines the probability of being found in each of the allowed states;
4 – Measurement: Measuring the state of an object absolutely determines the state of that object.

In “How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog” by Chad Orzel

Fairly basic take on Quantum Mechanics. It had to be to make it intelligible to a make-believe-Orzel-disguised-as-a-dog…

It doesn't fully address the core ambiguity in the 4 postulates Orzel uses (see quote above, namely the 4th postulate): What exactly is measurement? That is, the new postulates that they propose simply assume measurement to be a primitive notion of the theory, not reducible to anything more fundamental. Orzel can’t answer the troublesome question of why measurement outcomes are unique; rather, it makes that uniqueness axiomatic, turning it into part of the very definition of a measurement. And since it does not address what the measurement process is actually doing, it also does not address the issue "Did you even succeed in measuring the thing you thought you were measuring?" It is easy to show that "quantum correlations" and entanglement have nothing to do with either spooky action at a distance or hidden variable. It is caused by the purely classical phenomenon of inter-symbol interference together with noise, associated with Shannon's definition of a single bit of information. You cannot measure two independent parameters from an entity manifesting only one such bit. This is the ultimate origin of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Any attempt to even try to perform a second measurement, is guaranteed to be corrupted by the intrinsic properties (noise and inter-symbol interference) inherent to one of Shannon's "bits".

The question of "what exactly is measurement?" is squarely addressed and answered in The Transactional Interpretation, which yields a physical (as opposed to decision-theoretic) derivation of the Born Rule (Orzel only mentions it en passant, preferring to dedicate a whole chapter to the MWI). For specifics, including calculations, see which provides an explicit derivation of the Born Rule for radiative processes) and see this too... I’m not sure the dog would be able to understand it though…loved the way Orzel explains the Uncertainty Principle by adding wave-functions and using this approach to also explain Schrödinger’s Cat.

On the other hand, there is no mystery to the Born rule. The entire process of computing a wave-function and then computing the sum of the squares of its real and imaginary parts, amounts to nothing more than computing the power spectrum of a Fourier transform. The power spectrum (as the name implies) simply measures the energy accumulated/detected within each "channel' of a filter bank. When the energy happens to arrive in discrete, equal quanta, the ratio of (total energy)/(energy per quanta) yields the number of quanta accumulated within each channel. In other words, the entire mathematical procedure amounts to nothing more than the description of a histogram which is why it yields probability estimates. Every photon, gauge boson or quantum object that appears travelling at c to us is at the same time an "observer" of that part of the universe that involves its emission-flight-detection path (or better, "process"). It feels that space-time "chunk" of the universe as a single point of existence, with no distances and no intervals involved. That's why "paths" have no sense for them, or why wave/particle duality is not resolved until detection: because time intervals (or space distances, for that matter) have no sense for quantum objects that go at c. Their single bit of existence (from their point of view) is a probability function for us, until it collapses when we detect them. But for them, that collapse happens at the same "time" they are emitted, because there's no time involved in their experience of the universe, the whole "emission-flight-detection" process is experienced at once from their POV. So the universe would "exist" the same way without conscious beings, only it will not be "perceived" the same way you are used to (the space-time ratios conscious beings create in our brains). My point is specifically that the multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics means the philosophical question of whether the world is deterministic or not is still unsolved. By neglecting pilot wave theory due to its impracticabilities is reasonable concluding that the world is fundamentally random is not. All reasonable alternatives world need to be discarded not just a few fringe models.

Of course, The Uncertainty Principle is more fundamental than the Born rule. The former arise from the logical contradiction of trying to locate a particle with non-zero size in a point in space. A particle is not located in any one point in space but in a region of space that mathematically contains infinite number of points. There is contradiction between the math we're using and our physical intuition. We remedy this logical contradiction by imagining that the location of a point particle in a region of space is governed by probabilities. The Born rule uses the square of the amplitude and it works because it represents the area perpendicular to the velocity vector of an imaginary point particle.

One last piece of advice: next time lose the dog...

Show Less

Fewer