web site hit counter Philosophie de la mécanique quantique - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

34 review for Philosophie de la mécanique quantique

  1. 5 out of 5

    Mangoo

    A book that delivers to its title - in a no-nonsense, thoughtful, tightly argued, thoroughly referenced and enjoyable style for which the author (is known and) deserves to be praised. The book presents a description, praise and defense of the de Broglie-Bohm theory, which according to Bricmont is the actual theory that describes the microscopic phenomena, and of which the better known quantum mechanics is a cut-off part, actually an algorithm to compute and match experimental results of experimen A book that delivers to its title - in a no-nonsense, thoughtful, tightly argued, thoroughly referenced and enjoyable style for which the author (is known and) deserves to be praised. The book presents a description, praise and defense of the de Broglie-Bohm theory, which according to Bricmont is the actual theory that describes the microscopic phenomena, and of which the better known quantum mechanics is a cut-off part, actually an algorithm to compute and match experimental results of experiments. Bohmian mechanics is the actual theory, as it allows to speak of reality and gives a deterministic, nonlocal description of it. The book first describes the usual formalism of quantum mechanics and the controversial notion of measurement, traces its location in the philosophical spectrum and highlights two "mysteries", namely what can be associated to the famous double-slit experiment (made famous by Feynman) and entanglement, and then describes the de Broglie-Bohm theory and its "surrealistic" trajectories described by the quantum potential. Bricmont then tries to answer why the theory with all its merits (deterministic, nonlocal - which is required by Bell's theorem to describe Nature, natural interpretation of "measurement" (contextual) and of hidden variables (other than particle position, the only ones assumed), besides perfect reproduction of all predictions of quantum mechanics) has been neglected and even derided. To do this, it delves into the recent history of science, philosophy and sociology - a part of the book that is non-technical and nonetheless very interesting, where we learn of the building of the dogma of the so-called Copenaghen interpretation, the post-WWII and cold war climate of stigma against heretics like Bohm, the pragmatism of most scientists, the protraction of the dogma by eminent scientists, the few critical voices of Einstein, de Broglie, Schrödinger, Bohm, Bell and few others. Alternative theories or interpretations of quantum mechanics are also discussed (the fashionable many-worlds, decoherent stories, spontaneous collapses, quantum bayesianism), concluding that none comes even close to the achievements of Bohmian mechanics at once. Then of course, the latter is not the final theory, and it is particularly affected by 2 problems: it is not the only form of a similar theory (though the simplest), and (in common with quantum theory after the result of Bell) the incompatibility of nonlocality with relativity - the latter highlighted by Bell, grand defender of Bohmian mechanics, as the biggest theoretical problem in physics. Still, the book argues that it is big time that the theory is more largely taught and known, since indulging in the sole algorithm, in spite of the applications it has spurred, may lead astray as it does not speak of reality outside of the knowledge that one can get of it (per se a controversial idealist concept, though supported by unquestionable experts such as Anton Zeilinger). A much needed book, highly recommended.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Y-S.Ko

    Jean Bricmont's ''Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics'' consists of 8 chapters. It is very polemic, defending de Broglie-Bohm theory. Chapter 1, "Physics in Wonderland", consists of physicists's quotation about quantum mechanics. Chapter 2 is about the mysteries of quantum mechanics. (double slit and superposition) Chapter 3 is "Appeal to the stone" argument and pragmatic argument against idealism. Bricmont argues idealism must be rejected because (1) it is absurd and (2) it is not useful, pragmatic Jean Bricmont's ''Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics'' consists of 8 chapters. It is very polemic, defending de Broglie-Bohm theory. Chapter 1, "Physics in Wonderland", consists of physicists's quotation about quantum mechanics. Chapter 2 is about the mysteries of quantum mechanics. (double slit and superposition) Chapter 3 is "Appeal to the stone" argument and pragmatic argument against idealism. Bricmont argues idealism must be rejected because (1) it is absurd and (2) it is not useful, pragmatically. This defence is not impressive. To someone, idealism can be absurd, and not useful. But, this argument can be used against concept of "pilot-wave", no? We all know orthodox quantum mechanics is great "for all practical purposes". If pragmatic logic works, then why not accept orthodox QM? Chapter 4 is about EPR argument, Bell's theorem, and non-locality. Chapter 5 is introduction to de Broglie-Bohm theory. Section 5.2 and 5.3 are interesting, becuase it is basically Q&A about de Broglie-Bohm theory. In these sections, Bricmont argues, "The predictions of quantum field theory are extremely impressive, but contrary to received opinion, it is not true that there exists a fully relativistic quantum theory." Really? It is quite surprising, because Bricmont used prediction of quantum electrodynamics in the context of the "no-miracles arugment" for scientific realism, in his other book with Alan Sokal, ''Fashionable Nonsense''. I am curious about Bricmont's attitude about quantum field theory. Did he think QFT is approximately-true theory or only fits the data (like the prediction about H atom, in Bohr atom model)? If QFT is approximately-true theory, then de Broglie-Bohm theory fails, because de Broglie-Bohm cannot explain the reality of QFT. If QFT only fits the data, then "no-miracles arguement" fails. Chapter 6 is about other interpretations of quantum mechanics (like Many-worlds, spontaneous collapse, decoherent history, and QBism). Bricmont asked, "aren’t we doing the same here, but with de Broglie-Bohm, instead of Copenhagen?" his answer is: "Not really". But, his defence does not persuaded me. I think there are skeptical advertisers, such as Bohm himself and Bell, and other dogmatic advertisers. Bell once said "Well, you see, I don't really know. For me it's not something where I have a solution to sell!" Bricmont's attitude is very different from Bell's skeptical attitude. More dogmatic. Chapter 7 is revisionist history of quantum mechanics. If you want the longer revisionist history popular book, read Adam Becker's book "What is Real?". If you want criticism about revisionist history popular book, read Fuch's article "Copenhagen Interpretation Delenda Est?". In this case, many historians and physicists' position seems to be between orthodox and rivisionist history. Leonard Susskind, in his book ''Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum'', said: "It was generally accepted by most physicists that Bohr won and Einstein lost. My own feeling, I think shared by a growing number of physicists, is that this attitude does not do justice to Einstein’s views." Chapter 8: A more emphatic title to this chapter could have been "The Harm Done to Western (now World) Culture by Certain Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics." Reading this, My conclusion is: NO dogmatic defence of de Broglie-Bohm theory (such as Bricmont). It can be as harmful as dogmatic defence of any other theories. I think the answer is pragmatic pluralism. I think this can be accused to so-called "rationalist" (such as Bricmont) as "relativism! postmodernism!". But I think dogmatism can be more harmful than pluralism.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Risto Saarelma

    via https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05442 via https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05442

  4. 5 out of 5

    Bertrand Deroanne

  5. 4 out of 5

    Michael M

  6. 4 out of 5

    Jovany Agathe

  7. 5 out of 5

    Paul Cockshott

  8. 4 out of 5

    Aleksandar Biliderov

  9. 5 out of 5

    Sunderance

  10. 5 out of 5

    Leti

  11. 4 out of 5

    lolineka

  12. 5 out of 5

    Stevecr2011

  13. 4 out of 5

    Ana

  14. 4 out of 5

    Thomas Gauthier

  15. 4 out of 5

    Pt Books

  16. 5 out of 5

    Nu'Man Badr

  17. 5 out of 5

    Bob Finch

  18. 4 out of 5

    Nazree'S Junior II

  19. 4 out of 5

    DFT1789

  20. 4 out of 5

    John Micallef

  21. 4 out of 5

    Antonio Aguillon

  22. 5 out of 5

    Galen

  23. 5 out of 5

    Mohamed

  24. 4 out of 5

    Yazan Sayed

  25. 4 out of 5

    Alejandrodumas

  26. 4 out of 5

    J

  27. 4 out of 5

    Pedro

  28. 4 out of 5

    Quicksilver

  29. 4 out of 5

    Patrick Hochstenbach

  30. 5 out of 5

    R. Gabriel Esteves

  31. 4 out of 5

    Martynas Petkevičius

  32. 5 out of 5

    Arturo

  33. 4 out of 5

    Basia Horwáth

  34. 5 out of 5

    Dru

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.