Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
There is a newer edition of this item:
Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy), 2nd Edition
$143.00
(46)
Only 3 left in stock (more on the way).
$143.00
(46)
Only 3 left in stock (more on the way).
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Bell: "there is much overlap between the papers." (1987, preface).
Reviewed in the United States on August 25, 2022
The 1987 first edition contains 22 papers (212 pages). It would be foolish to ignore these essays of John S. Bell. Allow me to disclose an opinion: I am content with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Following--as I have--trends in the foundational issues of quantum mechanics (since 1970s),it is apparent that the topic is unnecessarily clothed in an air of mystery and linguistic mumbo-jumbo.For the most part, John S. Bell attempts to dispel the mystery. I do find some views less than compelling.(1) Before I get to the quantum mechanical essays, I have a major quibble with one paper: How to Teach Special Relativity. This paper, from 1976, is perhaps the worst way to teach special relativity. I read this essay in 1987, re-read it, then read it again (2022). Between readings I studied Arthur Miller's book "Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Emergence and Early Interpretation." I urge students to get Miller's book and then study this 13-page essay by John Bell. Bell reminds us that his approach is aligned with "the approach of Lorentz." (page 77). Unfortunately, Bell's essay is a mess and is poorly written. I urge the reader to seek out Ellis, Flat and Curved Space-Times (see page 104, Tied Rockets).(2) A favorite essay is "Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists." (#15, pages 117-138). I had read that essay many years prior, in a volume entitled Quantum Gravity 2, An Oxford Symposium (1981). That steered me to two other publications which remain dear to my mind: Mott's 1929 paper on "wave-mechanics of alpha-particle tracks" and Heisenberg's Physical Principles of Quantum Theory (1930). Bell refers to Mott (page 119). Mott's paper is crystal clear. Heisenberg's book is still relevant and lucid.(3) Bell seems to prefer the so-called Pilot-Wave interpretation. Read: "simple and natural suggestion...the wave-function is not a complete description of reality, but must be supplemented by other variables." (page 97). What is natural or simple ? Read: "Why is the Pilot-Wave picture ignored in textbooks" (page 160). Read: "The De Broglie Bohm pilot-wave picture is quite deterministic." (page 192). I am at a loss as to why anyone would prefer this interpretation over the standard Copenhagen interpretation. Now, there comes a recent paper claiming: "I argue that Bohmian mechanics (or any similar pilot-wave theory) cannot reasonably be claimed to be a deterministic theory." (Landsman, Foundations of Physics, July 2022).(4) "In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded." (page 27).John S. Bell wrote that in 1966. As of 2022: quantum mechanical description has not been superseded.(5) Concluding: you find in this volume a plethora of fascinating insights into the thought processes of John S. Bell regards foundations of quantum mechanics. I recommend as collateral study a book entitled "The Quantum Challenge" (1997, Greenstein and Zajonc). There are many others, but that one requires few prerequisites to understand and is "intellectually honest."
Reviewed in the United States on August 25, 2022
Images in this review
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on June 3, 2012
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on December 9, 2011
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on October 2, 2015
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on August 25, 2022
it is apparent that the topic is unnecessarily clothed in an air of mystery and linguistic mumbo-jumbo.
For the most part, John S. Bell attempts to dispel the mystery. I do find some views less than compelling.
(1) Before I get to the quantum mechanical essays, I have a major quibble with one paper: How to Teach Special Relativity. This paper, from 1976, is perhaps the worst way to teach special relativity. I read this essay in 1987, re-read it, then read it again (2022). Between readings I studied Arthur Miller's book "Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Emergence and Early Interpretation." I urge students to get Miller's book and then study this 13-page essay by John Bell. Bell reminds us that his approach is aligned with "the approach of Lorentz." (page 77). Unfortunately, Bell's essay is a mess and is poorly written. I urge the reader to seek out Ellis, Flat and Curved Space-Times (see page 104, Tied Rockets).
(2) A favorite essay is "Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists." (#15, pages 117-138). I had read that essay many years prior, in a volume entitled Quantum Gravity 2, An Oxford Symposium (1981). That steered me to two other publications which remain dear to my mind: Mott's 1929 paper on "wave-mechanics of alpha-particle tracks" and Heisenberg's Physical Principles of Quantum Theory (1930). Bell refers to Mott (page 119). Mott's paper is crystal clear. Heisenberg's book is still relevant and lucid.
(3) Bell seems to prefer the so-called Pilot-Wave interpretation. Read: "simple and natural suggestion...the wave-function is not a complete description of reality, but must be supplemented by other variables." (page 97). What is natural or simple ? Read: "Why is the Pilot-Wave picture ignored in textbooks" (page 160). Read: "The De Broglie Bohm pilot-wave picture is quite deterministic." (page 192). I am at a loss as to why anyone would prefer this interpretation over the standard Copenhagen interpretation. Now, there comes a recent paper claiming: "I argue that Bohmian mechanics (or any similar pilot-wave theory) cannot reasonably be claimed to be a deterministic theory." (Landsman, Foundations of Physics, July 2022).
(4) "In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded." (page 27).
John S. Bell wrote that in 1966. As of 2022: quantum mechanical description has not been superseded.
(5) Concluding: you find in this volume a plethora of fascinating insights into the thought processes of John S. Bell regards foundations of quantum mechanics. I recommend as collateral study a book entitled "The Quantum Challenge" (1997, Greenstein and Zajonc). There are many others, but that one requires few prerequisites to understand and is "intellectually honest."
Bell: "there is much overlap between the papers." (1987, preface).
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on August 25, 2022
The 1987 first edition contains 22 papers (212 pages). It would be foolish to ignore these essays of John S. Bell. Allow me to disclose an opinion: I am content with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Following--as I have--trends in the foundational issues of quantum mechanics (since 1970s),Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on August 25, 2022
it is apparent that the topic is unnecessarily clothed in an air of mystery and linguistic mumbo-jumbo.
For the most part, John S. Bell attempts to dispel the mystery. I do find some views less than compelling.
(1) Before I get to the quantum mechanical essays, I have a major quibble with one paper: How to Teach Special Relativity. This paper, from 1976, is perhaps the worst way to teach special relativity. I read this essay in 1987, re-read it, then read it again (2022). Between readings I studied Arthur Miller's book "Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Emergence and Early Interpretation." I urge students to get Miller's book and then study this 13-page essay by John Bell. Bell reminds us that his approach is aligned with "the approach of Lorentz." (page 77). Unfortunately, Bell's essay is a mess and is poorly written. I urge the reader to seek out Ellis, Flat and Curved Space-Times (see page 104, Tied Rockets).
(2) A favorite essay is "Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists." (#15, pages 117-138). I had read that essay many years prior, in a volume entitled Quantum Gravity 2, An Oxford Symposium (1981). That steered me to two other publications which remain dear to my mind: Mott's 1929 paper on "wave-mechanics of alpha-particle tracks" and Heisenberg's Physical Principles of Quantum Theory (1930). Bell refers to Mott (page 119). Mott's paper is crystal clear. Heisenberg's book is still relevant and lucid.
(3) Bell seems to prefer the so-called Pilot-Wave interpretation. Read: "simple and natural suggestion...the wave-function is not a complete description of reality, but must be supplemented by other variables." (page 97). What is natural or simple ? Read: "Why is the Pilot-Wave picture ignored in textbooks" (page 160). Read: "The De Broglie Bohm pilot-wave picture is quite deterministic." (page 192). I am at a loss as to why anyone would prefer this interpretation over the standard Copenhagen interpretation. Now, there comes a recent paper claiming: "I argue that Bohmian mechanics (or any similar pilot-wave theory) cannot reasonably be claimed to be a deterministic theory." (Landsman, Foundations of Physics, July 2022).
(4) "In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded." (page 27).
John S. Bell wrote that in 1966. As of 2022: quantum mechanical description has not been superseded.
(5) Concluding: you find in this volume a plethora of fascinating insights into the thought processes of John S. Bell regards foundations of quantum mechanics. I recommend as collateral study a book entitled "The Quantum Challenge" (1997, Greenstein and Zajonc). There are many others, but that one requires few prerequisites to understand and is "intellectually honest."
Images in this review
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on August 12, 2011
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on February 12, 2003
