1 comments about Introductory Quantum Optics.

1. I am a mathematician who is very familiar with electrodynamics and quantum mechanics.
   I read this book to teach myself quantum optics.
   Since I read it as a self-study text,
   I will review it from that perspective.
   Some of the weaknesses noted might be less important for a classroom text.
   
   The Gerry/Knight text is billed as suitable for
   "senior undergraduates and beginning postgraduates", but
   I fear that undergraduates who attempt it as a self-study text
   are likely to end up frustrated.
   I can't recall ever encountering an undergraduate with a background in mathematics and quantum mechanics
   sufficient to read this book in a reasonable time without the guidance of an instructor.
   If used for self-study, I think that minimal prerequisites
   would be a graduate level understanding of abstract linear algebra and quantum mechanics.
   Some familiarity with Fock space and the theory of operators on infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces would be desirable.
   
   Because the book is intended for beginners,
   the authors take pains to explain many things which a beginner might not know.
   Most of the explanations were careful and helpful, but I was dissatisfied with some.
   I read the book cover to cover and was able to follow most of it,
   but some of it (e.g, much of the chapter on decoherence)
   is still a mystery to me.
   
   Chapter 9 describes recent experiments in quantum optics which
   demonstrate amazing properties of light unimaginable from a classical perspective.
   The presentations of the physical setups give just the right amount of detail for clear understanding.
   The diagrams are good.
   However, I felt that the mathematical analyses would be easier
   for those with good backgrounds if done on a higher level,
   and some of the physical discussions seemed obscure.
   
   Given the authors' intended audience,
   it may be unreasonable to quarrel with their choice of mathematical level.
   However, it is truly unfortunate that some of
   their calculational details seem actually wrong.
   For example, in Section 9.3's discussion of a ``quantum eraser'',
   several terms appear to be omitted from equation (9.21),
   which invalidates some of the subsequent discussion.
   Moreover, the discussion is obscure and seems of questionable validity even were the text's (9.21) correct.
   More details can be found on my website.
   
   I noticed only a few errors which would affect the physics,
   but there are too many mathematical errors and
   an unusually large number of typos.
   Most of the typos are relatively insignificant,
   but nevertheless distracting.
   Readers should be prepared to check everything.
   
   My copy is by now riddled with underlined statements with marginal notes
   like "Why?", or "What does this mean?"
   As I progressed through the book and my understanding deepened,
   many of these "Why's" were erased, but quite a few remain.
   
   The reader who wants to learn quantum optics and has
   the necessary mathematical background may wish that
   parts of the book were more carefully written,
   but he will not be fundamentally disappointed.
   This is a good book from which I learned a lot.
   It seems much clearer than Scully and Zubairy's
   Quantum Optics, which I read previously.
   
   My brand new paperback copy is falling apart after only a few weeks of careful use at home.
   A book this good deserves a more durable binding.

5 comments about Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions).

1. This is a short book, and that is its only advantage, unfortunately.

   Granted, that the author is eminent in this field and was himself a student of the great Paul Dirac. However, this book does not sit easily in a series designed to make a subject approachable to the novice. It has far too much esoteric maths than is good for a book of this genre. An ever stronger criticism is the fact that instead of keeping to basic physics ideas such as the double slit experiment (which this book does well!) and then developing the ideas of atomic structure, and the uncertainty principle, it dwells on things like operators and such like.

   If you want a good introduction to Quantum Theory, look no further than the books by George Gamow's "The New World of Mr Tompkins" or "Mr Tomkins in paperback", or, "Uncle Albert and the Quantum Quest".




2. This book does its best, but in the end suffers from something that I think is inherent in the material itself. I did learn a little more about quantum theory from this book, but not much more than I already knew to begin with. And this book didn't really make many of the main concepts any clearer. I don't think is the author's fault, I think it's almost impossible to try to explain these things. Most of the problem, (and similar statements go for cosmology, cryptography, etc.) is that it's almost impossible to explain concepts whose fundamental expression is mathematical language without using mathematics. What inevitably results is some kind of vague, touchy-feely idea of what's meant, but little understanding. And I say this as a mathematician.

   To give just one example, at one point in the book, the author talks about "probability amplitudes", for several pages. The only problem is, he never says what this term is supposed to mean, but he does mention that complex numbers are involved, and other facts. The result after this happens several times is that the reader starts to read entire paragraphs consisting of terminology that's never been defined clearly. The word "operator" is the best example here. It's fine to talk ABOUT operators in indirect, oblique language, but really you don't have a true understanding of what that word means unless you know its precise mathematical definition, or unless you have a clear understanding of the notion of vector space (axiomatically, not "stuff you can add together"). I didn't have this kind of problem with most of the mathematical terminology, because I know it, but the problem comes with the physics -- the physics concepts are essentially mathematical, and trying to explain them without using mathematics is like trying to understand Shakespeare without being able to read English -- you can always give a vague, hazy account, but not much more.

   The book is well-written (aside from an overly-biased presentation of the philosophical aspects), but I think it tries to have its cake and eat it too. It says it's free of mathematics, but this isn't really the case. The whole text is fully of talk about operators, vectors, vector spaces, equations, probability theory, and so on. It's the _symbolism_, not the math, that's missing (except for the appendix, which thoroughly confused me, mainly because terms were introduced without precise definition, and the notation was the physicist's notation, not mathematician's notation...)

   This book was confusing to me, but the reason was because it had too LITTLE math, not too much.




3. I'm thoroughly unimpressed by Rev. Polkinghorne's account of quantum physics. Even though he is technically competent, Polkinghorne seems to get every major interpretation wrong. For example, he thinks Bohr in error to consider free will and determinism complementary. But Bohr's colleague and Nobel Laureate Max Born did say that Bohr's complementarity applies precisely to this situation.
   
   Right on page 1 Polkinghorne shows his tendency to misunderstand. Speaking of Laplace's conjecture, the physicist-turned-Anglican priest writes "In fact, this rather chilling mechanistic claim always had a strong suspicion of hubris about it. For one thing, human beings do not experience themselves as being clockwork automata...."
   
   This is like accusing someone of arrogrance because he said "If I were the president of the United States I would eliminate poverty..." He did say "If," didn't he? Laplace always said this prediction of the future is only possible in principle, but impossible in practice. In fact, in making his "thought experiment" - not a factual "claim," as Polkinghorne thinks - he made two assumptions which he knew to be UNTRUE. First, that such an ideal intelligence exists. (When Napoleon asked him about the Creator after reading his theory of the solar system, Laplace gave this magnificent reply: "Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis.") And second, that this intelligence can analyse absolutely all data at once.
   
   As for what humans "experience," the fact is that not even a frog feels like a clockwork automatum. But what we feel is irrelevant if our belief in free will is due to the unpredictability of our volition, and this unpredictability is due in to deterministic chaos, which leaves no room for free will at all, no matter how irregular we might feel. In fact, no machine can perfectly understand another machine of exactly the same level of complexity, even without chaos added to the difficulty. A machine may be able to understand another of lower level of complexity. The same goes for humans: We may always have difficult understanding ourselves although we may eventually understand simpler organisms. We humans have enough trouble understanding the nervous system of something as simple as a dog. What Polkinghorne should have asked is: What would be the effect of quantum mechanics on this "thought experiment" of Laplace? An honest answer would be: None. Indeed, Laplace did not need chaos or quantum uncertainty to know that his conjecture is no more than just a thought experiment, though a very worthwhile and instructive one.
   
   Polkinghorne puts down other physicists (and auto mechanics in general) by saying "The average quantum mechanic is no more philosophical than the average auto mechanic." Born, however, said that theoretical physics IS actually philosophy. Bohr always said that there are important epistemological lessons to be drawn from the world of physics, especially elementary particle physics. It's as though Polkinghorne has been asleep through all the major developments of the past century. On the few occasions he is awake, he misunderstands and misrepresents. Polkinghorne himself may be no more philosophical than an auto mechanic (maybe even less so), but don't drag people like Schroedinger, Bohr, Born, Pauli, Heisenberg, Wheeler, Bell and Weinberg through the mud with such silly statements.



4. In an introduction to a topic, one expects lots of figures to explain just about every topic. This book, and indeed the entire series, generally has rather few figures. The series also, generally, focuses on the historical development of the topic and not necessarily on the current understanding of the topic. Therefore, the series sacrifices a better explanation of our current understanding to explain who thought what and when. Nonetheless, this book serves adequately in the capacity of a "very short introduction."



5. This pocket-sized, 92-page text--113 pages with appendices and index--professes to be a "very short introduction" to an understanding of quantum theory, to the unseen world that's so many millions of times smaller than even atoms.
   
   It's not at all a bad summary of the field of quantum mechanics, written fairly lucidly, concisely, and with interest, but I'd have to say it's lacking as an introduction to the subject, in that it really does assume its readers are intelligent people with something of a science background. Do not buy this expecting it to be QUANTUM THEORY FOR DUMMIES, because it's still fairly dense and heavy, and not written as clearly or as startlingly as much of Stephen Hawking's stuff. To some readers, this assumption of their intelligence may be refreshing, and it is to a degree, but with a subject as complex and bizarre as quantum mechanics, most non-scientists will need as much help as they can get, help not necessarily to be found in here.
   
   I do have to say, though, that this is a book worth reading, and, then, re-reading. After I read it, I went back through and looked up a few of the more major concepts--quantum entanglement, in which two particles that interact will continue to affect each other no matter how far apart they're separated; Schrödinger's Cat and the idea of a state between life and death, between here and there, between being and non-being; Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and how you can't have a knowledge of both position and momentum of a particle; et cetera--and just that brief re-reading was a huge help to me.
   
   The book will teach you a lot about the subject, and will give you a good start toward further educating your knowledge of this awesome and frustrating topic, this topic which has already done so much toward unlocking the secrets of our existence and our universe--and toward confusing everyone.
   
   Its glossary is lacking, its author has a subtle but evident Christian bias, but overall it's a good little book, and I enjoyed it. I recommend it.

2 comments about Dr. Quantum Presents Do-It-Yourself Time Travel (Sounds True Audio Learning Course).

1. Since Fred Alan Wolf's book The Yoga of Time Travel: How the Mind Can Defeat Time is one of my all-time favorite books on the subject of time travel, I was understandably thrilled to discover that Wolf has recently created a new audio learning course on the subject of time travel. My next happy surprise is that DR. QUANTUM PRESENTS DO-IT-YOURSELF TIME TRAVEL feels very much like sitting down with Wolf and hearing him explain the physics and metaphysics of time travel in simple terms that any layperson can understand. Wolf has a delightful way of describing a seemingly complex subject in such simple terms that not only does time travel begin to make sense on an intuitive level, it also starts sounding quite doable even to those coming from a much more rational, down-to-Earth point of view. This audio course flows beautifully over six compact discs in such smooth fashion that the listener is drawn into contemplating the notion of how tachynauts might one day explore time in much the same way that astronauts explore space, after first having considered the nature of parallel universes and the interconnectivity between various possible and probable worlds... and some of the ancient yogic requirements considered necessary for traveling through time utilizing meditative yogic techniques. This audio workshop is so riveting that I found myself zipping through all six CDs in rapid succession, delighted to start each new segment in order to try the next exercise, hear more time travel stories, contemplate the next big ideas... and see where... and when... I might find myself next. Highly recommended!



2. Dr. Quantum Presents DO-It-Yourself Time Travel, Is very cool. The information was very complex, Yet easy to understand and grasp, Thanks to Dr. Quantum. A must have for anyone who has ever thought about time travel or who wants to experience a truely different mind expanding experience. 5 Stars over and over again. Very well done.

No comments about The Neurobiology of "We": How Relationships, the Mind, and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are (Sounds True Audio Learning Course).

5 comments about The God Effect: Quantum Entanglement, Science's Strangest Phenomenon.

1. If you are a physics major or well versed and well read on the subject this might not be the best book for you.
   
   If you are someone interested in the subject but don't have a lot of time or brain power to get really deep into physics this is a great book for you.
   
   Accessible, with deep yet clear examples, Clegg's book takes the reader on an interesting ride into physics, quantum entanglement and the possibilities.
   
   I found this book to be a fun read and his explanations were direct and easily comprehendible. Most books on this subject can be dry and down right boring. This book is different in that it keeps the reader interested, educates and elucidates possibilities and ideas, and I learned a little bit about the social world of physics and the characters of that stage.
   
   The only thing that did distract me was the title. Having nothing, or maybe everything, to do with "God", nor mentioning the phenomenon, I thought it a little off the mark. But it is a catchy title and if you let you mind wander the possibilities are definitely there.
   
   Fun read!



2. Although this book has been justly criticized it remains nonetheless a serviceable examination of one of nature's most interesting phenomenon: quantum engtanglement.
   
   Momentarily, the book's shortcomings, but first, it's strength.
   
   Quantum entanglement is sort of the platypus of physics...so unlike the phenomenon around it that it forces us to ask essential questions about the nature of physics itself. As has been commonly discussed in other popular physics works, there are four fundamental forces of nature. Two of them operate at the macroscopic level being gravity and electromagnatism and the other two operate miscroscopically at the nuclear level being the strong and weak nuclear forces.
   
   Significantly, each force has some type of distance limitation attached to it. So, to move a ball I have to somehow come into contact with it. Or likewise to move and electron I have to somehow sub atomicly come in to contact with it.
   
   However, such is not the case with quantum entanglement where as Albert Einstein observed we see a "spooky action at a distance." In other words, when two particles have been mated they immedaitely assume like properties (in the case of sub atomic particles for example, a like spin or orientation). Once entangled, one has merely to effect the orientation of one partner to the mating to effect the other.
   
   That's exactly the aspect of entanglement that made Einstein an ardent opponent of entanglement because ostensibly it seemed to violate his notions that light speed was the ultimate speed limit. Remember: in quantum entanglement effecting the orientation of one partner immediately effects the other partner. Einstein also saw as noxious the idea that this seemed to violate his notions of local action like me effecting a ball by somehow making contact with it.
   
   While quantum entanglement is great stuff for science fiction plots, it has some basic limitations that seriously curtail its applications...all of which are discussed by Clegg. Most significantly, it's properly called a quantum effect because it is just that...something uniquely naturally peculiar to the sub atomic world. The reason is that when the mated particles are set free, their orientations can be changed by ANY examination...including those typically done by nature.
   
   So, let's we were to recall Shroedinger's cat for another experiment (hopefully he's still alive!), and we were to want to entangle the entire cat. Our first biggest problem would be the natural interactions occuring between the cat and his environment between our attempt at entangling him and our attempt to unentangle him at the end of the process.
   
   Significantly, this most important potential application of entanglement -- teleportation -- is touched upon by Clegg.
   
   Also significantly, Clegg manages to cover the main entanglement issues as they exist at the time of his writing.
   
   However, and this where his limitations show themselves. Though his book clearly has some very lucid moments and helpful discussion, it also contains some distracting segeways and inclusions of material put there perhaps most likely to pad the length of the manuscript. Also, the titling of the work as "The God Effect" seems nothing more than an attempt to create a provocative title to encourage book sales.
   
   Even despite these limitations, the book is still on the whole well written and highly serviceable and undeniably discusses one of the most interesting phenomenon in nature. So, while this may be a good first book to read on the topic, by all means do not make it your last.



3. I am afraid I have to agree with Dr Mbogo. I simply mistrust the accuracy of the author's explanations. He cannot, as Dr Mbogo points out, even get right the basic notions of Cantor's treatment of infinity, repeatedly referring to numbers other than whole numbers as "fractions" - see pp. 172, 173.
   
   INVICTUS Brisbane



4. Totally outstanding dissertation on a most abstract area of quantum physics .
   Erudite , yet learned ; and eminently understandable .



5. If you have ever really wondered what quantum mechanics is really all about, and you have a deep distrust of Ramtha, then this is a great little book. You can get clear explanation of some of the weirdest parts of Q and some of the most exciting.

5 comments about The Spiritual Universe: One Physicists Vision of Spirit, Soul, Matter, and Self.

1. After reading Cynthia Larsen's review, I was very intruiged and went and gave this book a good look. What intruiged me about Cynthia's review was her report that the book has the notion that the individual soul is an illusion, that there really is only one universal soul we all participate in. I've felt this way for decades, which drew me to looking more closely into the book.
   
   But about chapter 4, Fred Wolf reveals a fatal flaw in his fundamental premise, which is that the universe expands for billions of billions of years and then begins to contract. Fred claims that his entire argument is based on this assumption. Well, when he made it, it had as good a chance as the the opposite idea that the universe would go on expanding forever. In a footnote to the second edition, he mentions that this fundamental premise has been questioned by recent theories but that the jury was still out. Unfortunately, it no longer is. The most recent and very compelling evidence is that the universe some billions of years ago passed into a phase of ever increasing accelerated expansion. Those are the observed facts. The theory behind it is wrapped up in the idea of dark energy, a (probably) constant anti-gravitational force that has existed since the big bang and will continue forever, gradually causing the entire universe to evaporate into nothingness.
   
   So much for Tipler's notion of the eventual contraction of the universe "squeezing" it back into infinitely rich life in the distant future. Wolf seems to depend a lot on Tipler's ideas along this line.
   
   However, if we taken an even larger view that encompasses our particular universe, there is now the notion that the universe is only one of an infinite number of others that always have existed and always will exit. Within that context, the notion of their being only one soul of which each of us is but a dim reflection still has life. Perhaps Wolf will come out with a new book and salvage his original insight of the "one soul" that will not depend on a scientific theory that has been falsified.
   
   And indeed the notion that there is only one soul is more of an insight than a belief or speculation. The challenge of explaining this insight is twofold. First, explaining what it means. This first part is very important and would thoroughly explain the difference between an insight and a speculation and why this is the former and not the latter. Second, rationalizing it in terms of the latest scientific theory, to show that it is not contradicted by the facts that we know about the way the universe actually is. This of course is what Wolf tried to do. The problem is he based it on a scientific theory which has now been falsified. Time to go back to the drawing board.



2. I'm glad to see this book has people thinking about the concepts Fred presents. However, the book has more than one fatal flaw. Read this, but also read Frank Tipler's The Physics of Christianity.
   
   Now, I'm not implying Tipler's book is flawless. It isn't. But both books help the reader to grasp a clearer picture of what physics actually IS saying.
   
   My advice... whenever you read a claim that seems new to you, look for a reference in the endnotes. If the reference seems reputable, fine, if questionable, question the assertion. In either case, keep reading as new books are published. The definitive book hasn't yet been written on this subject.



3. If you are curious about quantum physics, read books by Werner Heisenberg or Max Born or David Bohm. I you are curious about relativity, read books by Albert Einstein or Max Born or Hans Reichenbach or Wolfgang Pauli. Read books by Richard Feynman. A great source for these is the Dover books catalog.
   
   Learn about these topics from the masters. These "pop-physics" books have a certain appeal, but be careful about speculations and the combination of science with spirituality. It can be entertaining to read these books, but keep a healthy skepticism.



4. Fred Alan Wolf has brought his far out ideas down to earth again for the general audience. The Spiritual Universe is a worthwhile read showing a good comparison to historical spiritual mysticism and physics. The connections between the soul and quantum phenomena are a bit simplistic and must be taken by faith. Yet, the implications of his are ideas are staggering.



5. I found this book very difficult to read. The subject matter is part of the problem, but the author kept saying he would come back to this or that at a later time which tended to get me a bit lost. I also never was real clear in any specific way about the connections between quantum physics and the spiritual world.

5 comments about The Quantum Brain: The Search for Freedom and the Next Generation of Man.

1. I found the subject matter intriguing but the entire time I was reading this book I felt some vague discomfort with the delivery of the information presented. Although the science is complex, the explanations or the 'teaching of it' so to speak could have been greatly simplified. It seemed a bit cluttered. There were so many details presented that it was almost impossible (without great concentration) to see the 'big picture'. At some point during my reading of this book I investigated the author and was not surprised to discover that he had no scientific background and had written a book called 'Cracking the Bible Code'. I should have read the back of the book sooner. This book as just to hard to read. I've read a great many 'scientific' books on complex subjects that were much easier to absorb than this one. If I would have picked up this book in the bookstore and scanned it I would not have bought it. find your self another book on a similar subject, preferably written by a scientist and not a psychologist (that thinks codes are hidden in the bible) and get it instead.



2. This book was hard to understand. I would not recommend this one to those who are just curious, like myself.



3. I found the book to be a wonderful read! If your interested in the mysteries of Quantum Physics and the power of thought, this book is for you.



4. There are many topics raised in this book, some rather arcane. This review is limited to Satinover's attitude towards religion. He is open-minded to it. However, he believes that religion has justifiably been criticized for its failures more than science because only the former believes in absolute truth. (Could one not argue just the opposite?)
   
   Satinover frowns on unexamined beliefs, regardless of their content. To him, both belief and unbelief can be a fool's conviction. Against the view that no serious academic can be a believer, Satinover cites several top scientists who believe in God (pp. 215-216).
   
   Additionally, Satinover is willing to entertain other academic heresies. He is open to the idea that the universe is designed by an extraneous entity, and considers this view a matter of personal preference (p. 217). And, against those who scoff at the notion of free will, Satinover contends that science cannot decide between free will and determinism (p. 218).



5. This book makes the possibility of determinism being reality slim to none. Thoroughly researched, in many different aspects of science, joining them all together to bring free will into clear light via "classical objects" tapping into quantum possibilities. It is sort of hard to read if you aren't already well versed in all aspects this book touches, as I am not. Though Dr. Satinover does very well explaining the complex ideas. Most importantly, you can still get the basic idea he is trying to put across, regardless of your previous studies. By far the best book I've read, scientific or non-scientific. HIGHLY RECOMENDED!

2 comments about Quantum Physics.

1. Unfortunately, I had to use this book for a whole year. This book just plain stinks! The author is long winded and waste alot of space doing trivial things. Often, he leaves the more important topics as homework exercises. The explanations he does give are so confusing you'll have to read another book just to know what's going on. If you want a good Quantum Mechanics book, I suggest Sakurai.



2. Explanations are confusing and never structured,
   easily get missed in the middle of disordered discussion,
   inconsistent use of notations and abuse of undefined words..
   Get Sakurai. It's much much much more clear and elegant.
   Even 1 star is too much for this book.

4 comments about Problems and Solutions on Quantum Mechanics: Major American Universities Ph. D. Qualifying Questions and Solutions.

1. I study physics in Chile, and this book has been pretty useful for a first course in QM, but I have to note that the first 170 pages are titled "Problems and Solutions on Electromagnetism"! I hope someone gets word to the editor....

   Other than that, I'm pretty sure this book will find a place on your private shelf.




2. Sometimes it is very difficult to teach a course in quantum mechanics because there are few problems that have solutions that do not require months of research and numerical methods to solve. I have found that in my own courses on quantum mechanics, I take a lot of notes and I do a lot of homework assignments, but I don't have a whole lot of concrete, well-explained problems and solutions to show for all of the work. Since I found this book and those that accompany it, however, I have a very good source for problems and their solutions in QM. These problems are an excellent study aid for the solutions provide insight into the basics of the field. Strongly recommended.



3. All of these books titled "Problems and Solutions on (subject): Major American Universities Ph.D. Qualifying Questions and Solutions" are invaluable tools for a physics graduate student, in my experience. For quantum mechanics in particular, solved problems often illustrate difficult concepts better than any explanatory paragraph in a text.

   Criticism: Sparse index and contents. You'll find yourself adding notes to pages in the book quite often.

   If you are a student in physics, I suggest that you get your hands on these books.




4. I'm glad to pursache this book of problems of quantum mechanics because it is a great variety of them from varios universitys. Thank you.

5 comments about Quantum Mechanics and Experience.

1. 
   This author appears on the cult promotional video What the Bleep, which was produced by the Ramtha people who believe that a woman is channeling a 35,000 year old cromagnon warrior.
   
   Alberts appears on the film, emphatically waving his hands and talking about physics, which seemed to suggest that somehow our thoughts can influence external reality and its outcome.
   
   How can you trust a man that then appears on such a cult film?
   
   Maybe Alberts was duped and his sayings were taken out of context. But then this speaks of a vainglorious man that was more concerned for getting his image and notions "out there" and seemingly not particular who was doing it or not checking what the film was really about. It would not be surprisig then how such a man can get fooled and have that vanity used against him.
   
   Either way, be careful, as this man seems too zanny to really know what he is talking about and plus his writing style in the book looks like some retarded monkey on crack was sitting in front of the typewritter.



2. A previous reviewer expressed her dismay that Professor Albert has appeared in a "cult promotional video" called "What the Bleep Do We Know". I recommend that those concerned or interested by this claim do a search in the Wikipedia for the title of the film, and then search within that page for the phrase "David Albert". Within the paragraph containing his name is a link to an article in the on-line edition of Popular Science Magazine which explains that Prof. Albert does *NOT* and did *NOT* support the views of the filmmakers: the statements he made in his interview for the film were edited and cut such that he appears to support their ideas, when he actually considers them to be nonsense.
   
   I have read this wonderful book by Prof. Albert. I give it four stars instead of five because of the writing style: while said style is occasionally refreshing, it can sometimes be a hindrance to the reader's understanding of the ideas presented by the good professor.
   
   Prof. Albert uses a combination of intuitive and interesting thought experiments, coupled with a conceptual abstraction from the QM math, to engage the reader in a profound exploration of the *consequences* of the quantum reality that seems to encompass the microscopic world (and indeed the universe as a whole).



3. This book is so horrifically flawed on so many levels. First, there is the erroneous uncritical thinking involved in dealing with the measurement problem, which despite David's attempt to address, is completely evaded via a multi-layered philosophical detours of an almost paramastabatory nature. Second, on a technical writing level, David is completely unable to formulate one complete, coherent, and logically cohesive sentence. His writing style is to riddled with repeated mistakes in basic grammar that it is genuinely embarrassing to read.
   
   I would greatly encourage those interested in real science to read The Fabric of the Cosmos or The Elegant Universe.
   
   -B. Greene



4. What the Bleep is NOT "cult" film, and I wonder if the person who used that term even knows what it means or watched the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know".
   
   Succinctly, "What the Bleep" is the greatest film ever made. The fact that Albert disagrees with the filmakers detracts from, and does not add to, his credibility.
   
   Anything that finally attempts to unravel the fabric of deceit and brainwashing that western organized religion has propogated onto the populace is a refreshing addition to our culture and should be required viewing for the entire race.
   
   Also, to the reviewer who mocked JZ Knight and Ramtha: JZ and Ramtha are the real thing. The channeling has been put through an endless battery of scientific tests in an attempt to debunk the phenomenon and the results proved just the opposite: what JZ is doing is real and cannot be explained away as hoax. While channelling, Ramtha/JZ's brainwaves are in DELTA WHILE SHE IS CONSCIOUS - which is scientifically impossible for a human being to do. No other human being has ever accomplished this, and the scientists were forced to conclude that Ramtha "is a non-local phenomenon".
   
   Anyone who viewed "What the Bleep" with skepticism or disdain is obviously one of the many who have been brainwashed by western religion to the point of being so closed minded that they cannot even recognize enlightenment and true knowledge when they see it. It is not "occult" - it is TRUTH backed by science and quantum mechanics. Period.
   
   Jonathan Meadows



5. This really is a wonderful book, directed at the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
   
   Albert's elucidation of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics is not only the essence of simplicity, but also accurate. A most unusual combination!
   
   Albert then examines the consequences of that formalism for non-locality, the EPR experiment, Bell's inequality, the problem of measurement and the collapse of the wave function in a laid-back but precise presentation. Some other reviews have criticized the prose, but I found the writing to be friendly, modest and (and here's the punchline) understandable.
   
   This is an elegant piece of work.