Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem (rev ed.).

Peter Olver

Citation: American Journal of Physics 86, 955 (2018); doi: 10.1119/1.5054300

View online: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5054300
View Table of Contents: https://aapt.scitation.org/toc/ajp/86/12
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

What is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics
American Journal of Physics 86, 957 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5053411

Evolution of quasi-history of the Planck blackbody radiation equation in a physics textbook

American Journal of Physics 86, 887 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5054005

A matrix exponential approach to radioactive decay equations

American Journal of Physics 86, 909 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5064446

Energy conservation in explicit solutions as a simple illustration of Noether's theorem

American Journal of Physics 87, 141 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5086003

Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray

American Journal of Physics 87, 158 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5086393

Free falling inside flattened spheroids: Gravity tunnels with no exit

American Journal of Physics 86, 924 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5075716
BOOK REVIEWS
The downloaded PDF for any Review in this section contains all the Reviews in this section.

Craig F. Bohren, Editor

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802; mailing address: P.O. Box 887, Boalsburg, PA 16827; bohren@meteo.psu.edu

Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: An Exploration of and which are merely gauge degrees of freedom? What sort
the Physical Meaning of Quantum Theory. Travis of thing does the wavefunction of a system represent?
Norsen. 310 pp. Springer, 2017. Price: $59.99 Standard textbooks gloss over these questions. Norsen
(softcover) ISBN 978-3-319-65866-7; $44.99 (e-book) dwells on them. The first chapter covers familiar ground: the
ISBN 978-3-319-65867-4. (Tim Maudlin, Reviewer.) structure of pre-quantum theories including Newtonian
Mechanics and Maxwellian Electrodynamics. Even here, the
presentation foregrounds issues that are commonly ignored.
Travis Norsen’s Foundations of Quantum Mechanics In these seemingly unproblematic theories, how do we deter-
could be the spark that ignites a revolution. There is nothing mine the physical ontology (i.e., the basic physical entities)
new in it. postulated by the theory? A familiar example is the scalar
If those two sentences sound contradictory, they should. and vector potentials of classical electro-magnetism. In cer-
How could a book without a novel thesis change everything? tain gauges (e.g., Coulomb gauge) the potentials react instan-
Welcome to the world of foundations of quantum mechan- taneously to distant states of affairs. But the sting of this
ics. Everyone knows, in some vague way, that there exists appearance of action-at-a-distance is drawn if one denies
such a field as foundations of physics in general, and of physical reality to the potentials, regarding them instead as
quantum theory in particular. But it may be unclear exactly mere calculational devices. Already we find ourselves con-
who does this work and what they do. One stereotype is that templating questions about what is real, and about whether
foundations of physics is what some physicists do on the anything physically real goes faster than light.
weekends or after they have run out of real physics to do. The second chapter presents basic quantum phenomena
Also some philosophers do it full time. This last fact is a involving interference and entanglement. This will be famil-
huge red flashing warning sign that there is something dis- iar to any student who has had an introduction to quantum
reputable about the whole business. mechanics, but playing around with particular examples
In the case of quantum theory, a terminological marker encourages developing a “feel” for the theory.
has been created. Quantum theory is the most predictively Deviation from the standard textbook begins in the next
accurate theory in history. There is no doubt that it is in three chapters. Each of these presents a “problem” confront-
some sense correct. But even though we have every reason ing attempts to understand quantum mechanics as a physical
to trust its predictions, there is still another question: how to theory. Chapter 3 discusses the Measurement Problem,
interpret it. Chapter 4 the Locality Problem, and Chapter 5 the Ontology
According to this elucidation, quantum theory has every- Problem.
thing one could want from a theory save an “interpretation.” The Measurement Problem is the best known of the three.
And whatever it is to interpret a theory, it can’t be of any Succinctly: is there any fundamental physical difference
importance to physicists in their everyday life. Quantum the- between interactions that count as “measurements” and those
ory has gone from triumph to triumph without having an that don’t? A “fundamental” difference shows up when artic-
“interpretation.” An “interpretation” must be some inessen- ulating the basic laws of the theory.
tial luxury add-on, like heated seats in a car: it makes you John von Neumann’s axiomatization of quantum mechan-
feel warmer and more comfortable, but plays no role in get- ics treats measurement as fundamental. The wavefunction
ting you from here to there. evolves by smooth deterministic laws when the system is not
On this understanding, worrying about interpreting quan- being measured and by sudden indeterministic collapses
tum theory is inessential to pursuing the basic aims of when measured. This approach contradicts the conviction
science. that measurements are physical interactions like any others,
This is where Norsen comes in. Think of Foundations of governed by the same laws. What’s a measurement depends
Quantum Mechanics first and foremost as what it is: a text- on the physical dynamics rather than the other way around.
book for students. As such, it should not and does not contain The Measurement Problem poses a difficulty if measure-
any novelty in its content. Textbooks are judged by the logic ment is a trigger for wavefunction collapse. But the collapse
of their organization, the clarity of their presentation and the itself, no matter how triggered, raises a different puzzle: the
lucidity of their style. This one covers many of the topics of Locality Problem. This is what bothered Einstein about
a standard introduction to quantum physics, but focuses its quantum theory from the beginning. Collapses, as physical
attention on the foundational questions: What is there? How events, are wildly non-local. Thus the famous “spooky-
does it behave when no one is looking? How does it behave action-at-a-distance” that Einstein could not abide.
when someone is looking? (Separating these questions indi- Finally, the Ontology Problem concerns the physical sig-
cates that we are doing quantum theory.) Which parts of the nificance of the wavefunction. One way to pull the non-local
mathematical apparatus represent real physical properties sting from wavefunction collapse is to regard the

953 Am. J. Phys. 86 (12), December 2018 http://aapt.org/ajp C 2018 American Association of Physics Teachers
V 953
wavefunction as a mathematical object that does not repre- masters debating what they have done. Nothing could be
sent any physical property of an individual system. Does it more gratifying to an undergraduate physics student than
rather represent only statistical features of an ensemble of reading Einstein complain about his difficulties with quan-
systems? Does it represent any objective, mind-independent tum mechanics.
fact? Or rather reflect just the information an agent has about Chapter 6 ends without any clearly articulated physical
the system? theory in hand. Here Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
All of these options have been defended, and it is easy to departs most dramatically from standard textbook presenta-
see their attraction. The wavefunction of an electron spreads tions: it presents three clear, mathematically formulated
out in space. Does that mean the electron itself spread out? physical theories that aspire to make the same—or nearly the
Or that a huge collection of electrons spreads out? Or that same—predictions as the quantum predictive formalism.
my information about where the electron is dilutes? But if it Each of these three theories exemplifies a response to
is not the single electron physically spreading, how can one Schr€odinger’s cat problem.
explain two-slit interference? Here’s Schr€odinger’s puzzle. Initially, we assign a wave-
Further, the mathematical wavefunction is not defined function to the system containing the cat and apparatus.
over three-dimensional physical space but over the 3N- Suppose that wavefunction always evolves in accord with
dimensional configuration space of N particles. Fields in 3N- the linear Schr€odinger equation. It becomes a superposition
dimensional space don’t have any evident relation to the of macroscopically different states, some with a live cat and
three-dimensional world we find ourselves in, the world that others with it dead. If the wavefunction is complete (i.e., if it
physics is meant to explain. Norsen recounts how represents every physical characteristic of the cat) we have a
Schr€ odinger tried to solve this problem by defining a three- problem. The cat ends up neither simply dead nor simply
dimensional “charge density” for each electron, and then alive. As John Bell put it: “Either the wavefunction, as given
superimposing all of these in a common three-dimensional by the Schr€odinger equation, is not everything or it is not
space. However, the “smeariness” of the charge density right.”
could not be quarantined to the microscopic, but amplified Regarding the wavefunction as incomplete—as not every-
up to macroscopic scale. That is the problem of his epony- thing—yields a hidden variables theory. The term is a terri-
mous cat. ble misnomer. If the extra variables are to determine the
How might one solve the Measurement, Locality and health of the cat then they had better not be hidden, else we
Ontology Problems? These are questions that a typical phys- would not be able to tell if the cat ends up alive or dead.
ics textbook either ignores altogether or tries to finesse. They Regarding the wavefunction as complete but not right (as
are also problems that many physics students are intensely given by Schr€odinger’s equation) yields a collapse theory.
interested in. It is here that you least want to hear the com- The Copenhagen Interpretation is often taken to be a collapse
mand: “Shut up and calculate!”. theory that ties the collapses to measurements, an option that
If calculation will not address these problems, what will? highlights the measurement problem.
Each problem reflects an unclarity about the physical signifi- Chapter 7 presents the most famous “hidden variables”
cance of the mathematical formalism. And making precise theory: the pilot wave theory or Bohmian mechanics. In this
statements about the physical ontology and dynamical laws theory “particles” are particles—point objects that have defi-
is just what it is to precisely specify a physical theory. nite positions and follow continuous trajectories through
Standard quantum textbooks do not exposit a physical theory space-time. The wavefunction always evolves by
that lacks an interpretation: they present a predictive formal- Schr€odinger’s equation and the point particles also evolve
ism without any accompanying physical theory! deterministically, in accord with the guidance equation. The
“Interpreting quantum theory” is actually constructing alter- evolving microscopic particles congregate into macroscopic
native physical theories that can account for the accuracy of objects, which are shaped and behave just like ones we see
the predictive formalism. in the real world. At the end of Schr€odinger’s experiment,
Chapter Six discusses the most famous “interpretation” of for example, there will either be a cat-shaped collection of
all: the Copenhagen Interpretation. It is not a precisely for- particles moving like a live cat or a cat-shaped collection
mulated physical theory. It does not say what physically inert like a dead cat. No problem.
exists and how it behaves. The contemporary Copenhagen If Bohmian mechanics solves Schr€odinger’s problem so
Interpretation is just an attitude: the refusal to ask, much less cleanly, why has it not been universally adopted? Because
attempt to answer, foundational questions about quantum the dynamics of the Bohmian particles is wildly non-local:
theory. which way a particle here goes can depend on the disposition
That is not how Bohr saw things. He thought that deep of a piece of matter way over there. Bohmian mechanics
morals about the nature of the world had been revealed by incorporates the spooky action-at-a-distance that Einstein
quantum theory. Einstein found Bohr’s exposition largely hated.
incomprehensible. One lovely thing in these chapters, and Chapter 8 exposits Bell’s theorem: John Bell’s proof that
indeed throughout the whole book, is the judicious but exten- non-locality is unavoidable given the predictions of standard
sive use of quotations from Einstein, Schr€odinger, quantum mechanics. That removes the main objection to
Heisenberg, Born, Bell, Bohr, etc. Their discussions are Bohmian mechanics, although, as Bell says, in the way
sharp and clear, and students will delight at reading the Einstein would have liked least.

954 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 86, No. 12, December 2018 Book Reviews 954
 Chapter 9 presents the most highly developed collapse Noether’s First Theorem—the one in the book’s title—
theory, due to GianCarlo Ghirardi, Alberto Rimini and Tulio establishes a one-to-one correspondence between the continu-
Weber, universally known as GRW. GRW avoids the diffi- ous (Lie) symmetry groups of a variational principle and the
culty of tying the collapses to measurements by tying them conservation laws of the associated Euler-Lagrange equations,
instead to……nothing. The collapses just happen randomly whose solutions are the (smooth) extrema (more correctly, sta-
with fixed probability per unit time. tionary points). While Neuenschwander states that symmetries
Finally, Chapter 10 investigates escaping Bell’s dilemma by produce conservation laws, he does not mention the reverse,
maintaining that the wavefunction evolving by Schr€odinger’s which is an integral part of her statement of the Theorem (see
equation is both everything and is right. This yields the Many below). Noether’s Second Theorem states that if the variational
Worlds or Everett Interpretation. It is a famously weird physical principle admits an infinite-dimensional symmetry group
theory, not least due to the multiplying worlds. It is, for exam- depending on one or more arbitrary functions of the physical
ple, problematic what the probabilistic predictions of the quan- coordinates, then the associated conservation laws are trivial,
tum predictive apparatus even mean in this setting. but there are nontrivial differential identities among the field
GRW, Many Worlds and Bohmian mechanics are not pre- equations, which thus form an underdetermined system of dif-
sented in any standard quantum mechanics textbook. How ferential equations. For proofs of both results see Ref. 1.
adequate is Norsen’s exposition? Neuenschwander’s book does a commendable job detail-
The writing is not just so clear and straightforward that a ing Noether’s personal and professional history, illustrated
non-expert can understand it; it is so clear and straightfor- by numerous quotes, and how she came to these theorems. In
ward that an expert cannot manage to misunderstand it. brief, in 1915, Noether, as a leading young expert (albeit
What shortcomings does Foundations of Quantum unpaid due to her sex) in invariant theory and Lie groups,
Mechanics have? Norsen, like many others, attributes the was invited by David Hilbert and Felix Klein to visit the
electromagnetic gauge of Ludvig Lorenz instead to Hendrik University of G€ottingen. The reason for Hilbert’s invitation
Lorentz. And there are many topics that have been omitted: was that so she could help him in his intense ongoing compe-
the PBR theorem, the Bohm-Aharonov effect, field theory, tition with Einstein to establish the foundations of general
the challenge of Relativity, particle creation and annihilation, relativity and, in particular, to resolve an apparent paradox:
etc. the triviality of the energy conservation law derived from
But this last complaint is really a call for a successor vol- time-translational symmetry of the Hilbert variational princi-
ume: Advanced Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. May ple. (At that time, many special cases of Noether’s Theorem,
this book ignite a revolution in the pedagogy of quantum including the connections between translational and rota-
mechanics. Vive la R evolution! tional symmetries and conservation of linear and angular
momentum, and time translations with conservation of
Tim Maudlin is Professor of Philosophy at New York
University. He is the author of Quantum Non-Locality and energy, were already known.1,2) Noether’s Second Theorem
Relativity, Truth and Paradox, The Metaphysics Within resolved Hilbert’s dilemma; as she showed, the triviality of
Physics, New Foundations for Physical Geometry, and the energy conservation law was because the time transla-
Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time. He is a member tional symmetry group belongs to such an infinite-
of the American Academy of Arts and Science, the dimensional variational symmetry group, that, consequently,
Academie Internationale de Philosophie des Sciences, and produces the Bianchi identities among the field equations.
a Guggenheim Fellow. Despite the fundamental importance of her theorems in
classical and quantum field theories as well as in mathemati-
cal analysis, for the most part there have been major misun-
Emmy Noether’s Wonderful Theorem (rev ed.). derstandings about what she actually accomplished in her
Dwight E. Neuenschwander. 337 pp. Johns Hopkins seminal paper. In Ref. 1, I state and prove the full versions
U.P., Baltimore, MD, 2017. Price: $30 (paper). ISBN and further argue that her paper contains another fundamen-
978-1-4214-2267-1. (Peter Olver, Reviewer.) tal but largely unrecognized contribution—the introduction
and application of generalized symmetries, meaning those
In 1918, the mathematician Emmy Noether published two whose infinitesimal generators are allowed to depend upon
wonderful theorems that had a tremendous impact in physics, the derivatives of the field variables—which did not appear
mathematics, and beyond. While Noether’s primary interest in the earlier literature. A half century later, such higher
and lasting contribution to mathematics was laying the foun- order symmetries and their consequential higher order con-
dations of modern abstract algebra, the term “Noether’s servation laws played an essential role in the discovery of
Theorem” belongs to the lexicon of physicists and applied integrable (soliton) partial differential equations, such as the
mathematicians. nonlinear Schr€odinger and Korteweg-deVries equations. Their
Nevertheless, many of them remain unaware of the true importance for Noether was that they allowed her to obtain the
scope and formulation of her fundamental theorems. In part, aforementioned one-to-one correspondence between symme-
this is due to the inadequate and misinformed treatments of tries and conservation laws. While writing Ref. 1, I started
her results that continue to proliferate in the literature. investigating the history of her Theorems in the literature,
Unfortunately, despite the best of intentions, the book under which contains a strange mixture of papers claiming special
review is of this very nature. cases to be the “Noether Theorem,” followed by a rash of

955 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 86, No. 12, December 2018 Book Reviews 955
subsequent papers purporting to generalize it, when they were necessary and sufficient extremal conditions due to Legendre,
merely restating special cases of her marvelous and very gen- Weierstrass, Erdmann, Jacobi, Hilbert, Caratheodory, etc., none
eral result. My initial historical forays were taken up in earnest of which are mentioned in the text. And this does not even
by Yvette Kosmann-Schwarzbach in her masterly history of include powerful direct methods based on modern functional
Noether’s Theorem and its reception and development over analysis. He also misstates a number of basic results in analysis.
the last century.2 For example, page 36 claims that Leibniz’s rule allows one to
Unfortunately, Neuenschwander’s book is representative bring derivatives under the integral sign. But this rule is merely
of the aforementioned genre, stating a special case of her first the formula for the derivative of the product of two functions
result as if it were the general Noether Theorem. If he read and thus justifies integration by parts, which underlies all calcu-
Noether’s original paper, he did not fully understand it. Nor lations in the classical calculus of variations, including
did he consult the detailed discussion of the two Theorems in Noether’s Identities and Theorems.
the first edition of Ref. 1. Even worse, in his revision The descriptions of symmetry and group theory are partic-
Neuenschwander cites Kosmann-Schwarzbach’s book, so ularly poor. He gives a reasonable explanation of an infini-
there is no excuse for remaining ignorant of what is written tesimal transformation, but then, in Exercise 4.7 describes
in it. Indeed, a major concern is that his book will foster yet the infinitesimal generators in terms of matrices, which only
another generation of physicists who do not understand the works for linear actions and is false as stated (and the defini-
full scope and power of Noether’s First Theorem. tion of “Killing vector” is not correct). He fails to develop
Neuenschwander also appears to be confused by the connection between the infinitesimal generator, which
Noether’s Second Theorem. On Page 8 he says it includes should be thought of as a vector field on the underlying
the first as a special case, and repeats this claim on page 203, space, and the induced one-parameter group, which can be
where he makes the bizarre claim that the Second Theorem identified with the flow of the vector field in the sense of
is the Noether Identity. Now, while the Second Theorem dynamical systems. This is basic physics of, say, fluid
does rely on this fundamental identity that underlies the First mechanics, where the velocity vector field generates a steady
Theorem, this is not the point. The Second Theorem, as state fluid flow, with time playing the role of the group
stated by Noether, only applies to certain kinds of infinite- parameter. Furthermore, I could not find a clear statement
dimensional symmetry groups, e.g., gauge symmetries, that that the symmetries of the variational problem are symme-
depend upon arbitrary functions of the independent varia- tries of the Euler-Lagrange equations, but not conversely, the
bles, whereas the First Theorem and its key identity apply to most common counterexamples being scaling groups. Page
all continuous symmetry groups (both finite-dimensional Lie 79 says “functionals can be extremals but not invariant, and
groups and infinite-dimensional Lie pseudo-groups), the only they can be invariant but not extremal” which makes no
issue being triviality of the resulting conservation laws. The sense at least to me, in the same fashion as the above quoted
latter question was finally dealt with in Ref. 1, where it was sentence on page 94. How can a functional (as opposed to a
shown that a “normal system” (meaning one without integra- solution) be extremal?
bility conditions) has a one-to-one correspondence between Sophus Lie, whose remarkable theory of symmetry groups
nontrivial symmetry groups and nontrivial conservation of differential equations underlies Noether’s results, makes
laws. Underdetermined systems of Euler-Lagrange equa- only a cameo appearance on page 75. In section 5.4, the
tions, such as those arising in general relativity, fall under author states two “problems”: “(1) given a transformation,
the ambit of Noether’s Second Theorem, and admit nontriv- seek a Lagrangian whose functional is invariant; or (2) given
ial differential relations among the field equations, such as a Lagrangian seek transformations that lead to invariance.”
the relativistic Bianchi identities. These points are properly For some reason, he calls one or both of them an “inverse
explained in the relativistic framework on pages 225–234, problem” which is not the standard terminology used in the
but the initial characterization of the Second Theorem on calculus of variations, where it refers to the problem of deter-
pages 8 and 203 remains deeply flawed. mining whether a given system of differential equations is
Neuenschwander also exhibits a rather shaky knowledge of the Euler-Lagrange equation of a variational principle.1
the calculus of variations. His derivation of the Euler-Lagrange For continuous transformation groups, the solution to both
equations is unnecessarily complicated. In particular on pages problems was already found by Lie well before Noether
37–38, the variation 1 is assumed to be continuously differen- appeared on the scene; she was well aware of Lie’s contribu-
tiable but the lemma used to complete the proof only assumes tions. For the second problem, one merely applies a general
its continuity, and hence is not immediately applicable. It is infinitesimal generator to the Lagrangian to find the infinitesi-
also worth pointing out that only sufficiently smooth extrema mal determining equations, which can then be solved for the
satisfy the Euler-Lagrange equations. On page 33, he makes most general symmetry generator. Alternatively one can com-
the strange claim that maxima and minima “lie outside the pute the symmetry group of the associated Euler-Lagrange
mathematics of the calculus of variations,” and later on page 94 equations using the standard infinitesimal Lie algorithm, and
states that “when a functional (sic) is said to be a minimum and then determine which ones satisfy the additional variational
not a maximum, or vice versa, it is for physical reasons, not condition. All of these are straightforward computations, now
mathematical ones.” This effectively ignores the entire history encoded in computer algebra systems such as Mathematica
of the calculus of variations, particularly the theory of the sec- and Maple. As for the first problem, which is not dealt with
ond variation, the importance of conjugate points, the variety of here, as Lie proved, the most general invariant Lagrangian is a

956 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 86, No. 12, December 2018 Book Reviews 956
function of the differential invariants of the group multiplied Bohr, but a weakness of the author: So taken with his intent
by an invariant volume element, quantities that Lie (and for destruction, Becker neglected to do much homework
Noether) were very familiar with, and knew how to find. on the subject. Advance praise on the back cover declares
Indeed, the theory of differential invariants, which is funda- “In this immensely well-researched book…,” but anyone
mental to the study of invariant variational problems and who has seriously studied Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, von
invariant differential equations,1 has never been properly Weizsa€cker, Rosenfeld, and other contributors to what
appreciated among the physics community, and the author Heisenberg more aptly named “the Copenhagen spirit” (for
squandered an opportunity to present it here. there are many Copenhagen interpretations) will quickly
Despite my negative review, there are some aspects of the detect that this is simply not true. The bibliography appears
book I like. As noted previously, the history is quite good, rich with sources (206 items), but on closer examination one
and bringing the career of Emmy Noether to the attention of finds just five collections of writings from any of the
a broader audience is commendable. The physical exercises Copenhageners, and even these were not particularly used in
and examples are commendable, particularly the material on the text—the only substantial quotes of Bohr come from two
quantum mechanics. I also like the inclusion of exercises as essays and an interview. But what about material from the
well as the sections on questions for reflection and discus- 36 other essays in Bohr’s collected philosophical papers, or
sion—except when they perpetuate some of the author’s the extensive writings of Leon Rosenfeld and C. F. von
confusion and inadequate explanations. Weizs€acker, or any of the analyses of Henry Folse, Arkady
But, despite the best of intentions, which I applaud, the Plotnitsky, and John Honner explaining the ways in which
bottom line is that Neuenschwander’s book does a disservice Bohr was a realist about quantum objects? For an author
to both Emmy Noether the mathematician, and her indeed who cries out “What the hell is going on here?” over what
marvelous theorem(s). I am surprised he did not seriously try the Copenhagen interpretation actually says about reality,
to address the shortcomings of the first edition, as pointed out one might wonder whether he ever really wanted to know.
for instance in a review by Kosmann-Schwarzbach.3 In the What is served instead of a scholarly “know thine enemy”
preface, he compares Noether’s Theorems to a “magnificent is an extended takedown of a single quote, “There is no
summit in an impressive range of ideas,” but unfortunately he quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical
has mistaken a lesser peak for the truly majestic mountain description,” presented as if it were from Bohr himself. Only
towering beyond. She and the physics community deserve if one were to look into the book’s endnotes and follow its
much, much better. trail to the actual sources, would one learn that Becker
1 knows better: The quote is not from Bohr himself, but from
P. J. Olver, Applications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations, 2nd ed.
(Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993). Aage Petersen after Bohr’s death, recollecting how he
2
Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach, The Noether Theorems. Invariance and remembered Bohr speaking. This rhetorical technique is part
Conservation Laws in the Twentieth Century (Springer, New York, 2011). of a larger pattern of bait in the text and switch in the notes.
3
Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach, “Review of first edition of Emmy Noether’s
wonderful theorem,” Phys. Today 64(9), 62 (2011).
Some instances are insubstantial for a reader who seeks
entertainment only. An example: After telling a riveting tale
Peter J. Olver is a Professor and Head of the School of of a speaker’s bad treatment upon reporting David Bohm’s
Mathematics at the University of Minnesota. He received his hidden variable theory, one finds in the endnotes, “This story
Ph.D. in Mathematics from Harvard University in 1976. He is must, at best, be taken with a sizable grain of salt.” On the
the author of over 140 research papers and 5 books, including other hand, the example of the Petersen quote is more insidi-
undergraduate texts in applied linear algebra and partial dif- ous, as much of the theme of the book is built on it.
ferential equations. He was named a “Highly Cited “There is no quantum world”—what might Bohr or
Researcher” by Thomson-ISI in 2003. His research interests Petersen have meant by this? Without much context for how
revolve around applications of Lie groups and moving frames,
the words were meant to be used, one is essentially free to
and range over image processing, fluid mechanics, quantum
mechanics, elasticity, Hamiltonian systems, the calculus of var- fantasize. And that the author certainly does. The Bohr and
iations, geometric numerical methods, differential geometry, other Copenhageners Becker constructs tip close to believing
computational algebra, and classical invariant theory. in no reality at all. They are solipsists… or positivists… or
idealists… or operationalists… or, well it doesn’t really mat-
ter, as Becker doesn’t much bother to recognize distinctions
What is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of between these positions anyway. (He even calls the noted
Quantum Physics. Adam Becker. 379 pp. Basic Books, pragmatist philosopher Charles Morris a positivist.) More
New York, 2018. Price: $32.00 (hardcover). ISBN 978- often than not though, his explicit target is a supposed con-
0-465-09606-0. (Christopher A. Fuchs, Reviewer.) nection between the Copenhagen interpretation and positiv-
ism, viz., “the overthrow of logical positivism and the rise of
“If you strike at a king, you must kill him,” Ralph Waldo scientific realism radically changed philosophy of science—
Emerson once advised a famous law student. In this vividly and ultimately struck a major blow at the root of the
written first book by Adam Becker, the overt intention is to Copenhagen interpretation itself.” But if so, why would
strike at a king, Niels Bohr, key architect of the so-called Heisenberg write in Physics and Philosophy, “It should be
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Becker noticed… that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
does not kill him. This is not because of the invincibility of theory is in no way positivistic.” Or again, this time

957 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 86, No. 12, December 2018 Book Reviews 957
paraphrasing Pauli in Physics and Beyond, “The positivists classical physics, but one that was more than can be captured
have gathered that quantum mechanics describes atomic phe- in classical-style terms. It is this idea that most modern phi-
nomena correctly, and so they have no cause for complaint. losophers of physics and apparently Becker himself have a
What else we have had to add—complementarity, interfer- hard time getting their heads around. And thus perhaps their
ence of probabilities, uncertainty relations, separation of reaction is no wonder: When something cannot be expressed
subject and object, etc.—strikes them as just so many embel- in the limited vocabulary native to their ears, what else could
lishments, mere relapses into prescientific thought…” follow but frustration?
To be fair, Becker does recognize a weakness in his identi- But, this is no excuse to flub the very basics of the
fication of the Copenhagen interpretation with positivism. debate. There are a number of historical errors in the book,
But as per the larger pattern, one will only see his confident most of them minor. For instance, Wigner did not introduce
exposition wane if one troubles to plumb the endnotes. In a the term “the problem of measurement” in 1963; it goes
remarkable passage, Becker writes, “Whether Bohr himself back at least to a 1949 paper of Jordan. The Nobel prize of
was a positivist was and is a subject of much debate. …But 1938 was not valued at $1 000 000, even in 2017 dollars.
the particulars of Bohr’s views are far less significant, histor- And Kramers, Gamow, von Weizs€acker, Peierls, and
ically, than the fact that his views were obscure [and] that Wheeler were not Bohr’s students, but his postdoctoral
positivist reasoning was ubiquitously deployed in defense of employees. However, one error is absolutely unforgivable
the Copenhagen interpretation, and such defenses were often given the subject of the book: Becker actually gets the
presented as the views of Bohr himself.” If everyone else Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) argument wrong! In his
does it, I can do it too? scenario, starting with two entangled particles and the
Would Bohr accept the ways Becker tries to speak for assumption of locality, he tries to establish that each parti-
him: “There is no problem with reality in quantum physics cle simultaneously has a position and a momentum by sup-
because there is no need to think about reality in the first posing the one measurement on one and the other
place.” “The theory needs no interpretation, because the measurement on the other. But that is not what EPR con-
things that the theory describes aren’t truly real.” “Quantum sider: Their hypothetical measurements are made only on
physics tells us nothing whatsoever about the world.” Surely one particle, from which they draw inferences about what
not! As Bohr related to Thomas Kuhn in his final interview, would happen if they were to perform the same measure-
“I felt … that philosophers were very odd people who really ment on the other. This change makes all the conceptual
were lost, because they have not the instinct that it is impor- difference in the world. When an author does not under-
tant to learn something and that we must be prepared really stand the argument himself, should he have the right to
to learn something of very great importance. …[I] think it declare. “It’s unclear how [Bohr’s response] relates to the
would be reasonable to say that no man who is called a phi- EPR argument,” and dismiss it as “muddled writing?”
losopher really understands what one means by the comple- But I did say the book is vividly written, and indeed it is. It
mentary description.” Bohr certainly thought we learned shines when it reports on those attempts to interpret quantum
something deep and profound about nature with the discov- theory along the lines of what Pauli called a “narrower form
ery of quantum theory. In one of the endnotes Becker mar- of the reality concept”—technically speaking, those interpre-
vels that Kuhn in his historical work and the philosopher tations where nonlocality is a genuine feature of nature and/
Norwood Russell Hanson—two thinkers he clearly or quantum states are understood to represent actual attributes
respects—could be philosophically anti-positivistic, yet of quantum systems, not just information, knowledge, or
fairly keen on the Copenhagen interpretation. Reflection on beliefs. Becker’s sketches of David Bohm, Hugh Everett III,
the idea that maybe they knew what he didn’t, i.e., that the John Bell, and others involved in those developments are
issues might be more subtle than he imagined, does not compelling and humane. Many of these great names are his
appear to be in his list of options. heroes, and it comes through in the care with which he tells
Perhaps Pauli of all the Copenhageners described best the their stories. In this review, however, I opted to focus on the
distinction between what they aimed for (no matter what side of the book critical to Copenhagen because I know there
their errors) and the way Becker portrays them: “[I] invari- will be many reviews positive on it through and through,
ably profited very greatly even when I could not agree with such is the mood in the philosophy of physics community.
Einstein’s views. ‘Physics is after all the description of real- It is only that there is a need for damage control with a
ity,’ he said to me, continuing, with a sarcastic glance in my book so disingenuous. I will be the first to admit that Bohr,
direction, ‘or should I perhaps say physics is the description Pauli, Heisenberg, and all the others were no oracles, no ulti-
of what one merely imagines?’ This question clearly shows mate authorities. Their views did often contain inconsisten-
Einstein’s concern that the objective character of physics cies. But, what this book leaves out is the spur to thought the
might be lost through a theory of the type of quantum Copenhagen interpretation has been for so many in the quan-
mechanics, in that as a consequence of its wider conception tum information and computing communities. E. T. Jaynes
of objectivity of an explanation of nature the difference put the challenge of how to right the wrongs of Copenhagen
between physical reality and dream or hallucination become this way: “[O]ur present [quantum mechanical] formalism
blurred. …Einstein however advocated a narrower form of is… a peculiar mixture describing in part realities of Nature,
the reality concept.” [Emphasis added.] The Copenhageners in part incomplete human information about Nature—all
saw in quantum theory not a less robust reality than in scrambled up together by Heisenberg and Bohr into an

958 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 86, No. 12, December 2018 Book Reviews 958
omelette that nobody has seen how to unscramble. Yet we helpful introduction to people who are not expert in those
think the unscrambling is a prerequisite for any further fields. His discussion of biological evolution is more cursory
advance in basic physical theory.” From this point of view, and is included as a necessary part of the question of why the
the tools and concepts of quantum information are what universe seems to be so well tuned to result in humans.
were needed to make sense of the deeper elements of the In his preface, Professor Vigdor describes his target audi-
Copenhagen interpretation all along. Yet, this is an interpre- ence as being college level physics students or even fresh-
tative route hardly mentioned in Becker’s book, though it man level honor students, and I think that he has gauged his
now commands a significant portion of quantum foundations intended audience pretty well. The book has an extensive list
research worldwide. To quote from an essay of D. M. of citations and references, sprinkled liberally throughout the
Appleby, one of the researchers in that community, “If I am text, making it easy for an inspired reader to easily dig more
asked to accept Bohr as the authoritative voice of final truth, deeply into any particular topic that catches his or her eye. I
then I cannot assent. But if his writings are approached in a think that even particle physics or cosmology graduate stu-
more flexible spirit, as a source of insights which are not the dents or postdocs (who often focus on a specific research
less seminal for being obscure, they suggest some interesting topic) will find the book valuable, as it provides a broad
questions. I do not know if this line of thought will be fruitful. overview of the subject matter. An especially strong feature
But I feel it is worth pursuing.” The worry to my mind is what of the book is that it does not only describe research at such
if a young student encounters Adam Becker’s book, with its scientific powerhouses as the well-known Large Hadron
tale of the Copenhagen interpretation being a “mishmash of Collider, which attempt to concentrate as much energy into
solipsism and poor reasoning” before she has a chance to read as small a volume as possible to try to discover new laws of
any of the Copenhageners herself? She may never follow the nature. He also describes many precision experiments which
pursuit Appleby suggested, and physics could be impoverished have the potential to teach us even more.
for it. Within the subject matter of particle physics and cosmol-
ogy, he spends a great deal of time on the concept of symme-
Christopher A. Fuchs is a Professor of Physics at the try, including the symmetries of charge conjugation and
University of Massachusetts Boston and a Fellow of the
Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study in South Africa. parity (CP). He describes the Higgs field and the breaking of
Notwithstanding the irony of it, he once compiled a list of its symmetry in the early universe. I found his discussion of
every sentence in Bohr’s philosophical writings that started symmetry breaking in both the electroweak and strong forces
with the word “notwithstanding.” He found 39. to be particularly dense, requiring consultation of other sour-
ces to make sense of his explanations.
This denseness does not appear everywhere throughout
Signatures of the Artist: The Vital Imperfections That the book. His discussion of dark matter and dark energy is
Make Our Universe Habitable. Steven E. Vigdor. 359 interesting and given at a level appropriate for his target
pp. Oxford U.P., New York, 2018. Price: $32.95 audience, as are his chemical, biological, and quantum
(hardcover). ISBN 978-0-19-881-482-5. (Don Lincoln, mechanical descriptions. His writing style is also a little dry
Reviewer.) and academic, especially in the earlier parts of the book.
My main concern about this book is not the descriptions
Professor Steven E. Vigdor’s book “Signatures of the of individual topics. The challenging passages covering
Artist” is an interesting and unique contribution to the crowded symmetry breaking aside, each topic is described quite
field of popular scientific literature, with an ambitious, well, by and large. My main critique is that the book
although somewhat ill-defined, intent. The author’s stated goal doesn’t seem to be…well…a book. I found myself trying to
is to introduce the reader to many of the experiments that determine what the author intended as a core narrative arc
underlie our modern understanding of the universe. It covers to tie the entire work together.
important and cutting-edge topics in particle physics, surveys There seemed to be a couple of possibilities. For
the origin of life and its subsequent evolution, and then even instance, the book’s title appears to have been inspired by
dabbles a bit with quantum mechanics. With such a broad set a particular piece of art by M. C. Escher, called “Plane-
of subject matter, such a book demands a unifying theme that filling motif with reptiles.” A yin/yang symbol, first flipped
ties it all together and while Professor Vigdor seems to have around a vertical axis, then a horizontal axis, and finally
attempted to employ more than one theme to do so, I am not with white and black swapped, will look exactly like it did
sure that he succeeded with any of them. before those operations. Escher’s artistic piece is com-
First, I would like to describe the strengths of the book. posed of intertwined black and white lizards and has the
Vigdor is a well-educated and informed scientist, with an same property, except that the author signed it in one cor-
impressive and encyclopedic grasp of the subject matter. The ner. When the flipping and color changing operations are
topics he chose to include are well selected, and he omits no applied to the artwork, the lizards look as they did before
fundamental physics mysteries of consequence. While he is a the changes, but the author’s signature has moved. Thus,
physicist and consequently his descriptions of particle physics, the author’s signature has broken the symmetry.
cosmology, and quantum mechanics are the strongest parts of Vigdor extends this metaphor to physics theories. Many
the book, his descriptions of chemical evolution and recent physics theories have a fundamental symmetry, allowing
scholarship in the field of abiogenesis are done well and are a an important property or properties to be swapped. The use

959 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 86, No. 12, December 2018 Book Reviews 959
of the Escher metaphor maps naturally onto CP symmetry, between ID and modern science, but he never quite stood his
which interchanges directions (e.g., left/right, up/down, and ground and drew a line in the intellectual sand.
forward/back) and matter and antimatter. CP is nearly a As I read the closing words of the book, I found myself
perfect symmetry in nature, but it is broken to a tiny degree. unsatisfied. I was looking for a conclusion; a literary punctu-
This small broken symmetry might explain a very large ation mark that told me, the reader, just why I had read this
mystery of the universe, which is why the cosmos is made book. I found that piece missing. I remain uncertain just
exclusively of matter, when matter and antimatter should what story Vigdor was trying to tell.
exist in equal quantities. The title of the book highlights how Yet, the book contained many fascinating tidbits of infor-
these small imperfections in much larger symmetries are mation not seen in most popular science books, heavily cited
likely clues as to the solution of a number of different unex- and referenced, with a very broad and expert eye.
plained questions about the universe—essentially signatures Despite the weakness of the book’s narrative arc, if the
of the creator, although he does not imply a literal one. This reader knows that weakness in advance and simply wants to
metaphor arises more than once, but somehow is never understand a lot of very fascinating science, then I recom-
employed as powerfully as it might have been. mend this book.
I also had the impression that Vigdor really wanted to take
on those members of society who believe in the principle of Don Lincoln is a senior scientist at Fermilab interested in
intelligent design (ID) as a proof of the existence of an intel- the question of quark and lepton generations. Currently, he
ligent creator of the universe. Throughout the book, he men- is using data collected by the Compact Muon Solenoid col-
tioned many examples of instances where small changes in laboration and using the Large Hadron Collider to explore
that topic. In addition, he is a science popularizer, having
the laws of the universe would have led to a cosmos in which
written several books for the public on particle physics, cos-
life would be impossible; indeed, it is for this reason that he mology, and xenobiology. He is a frequent contributor to
included in what might have been a book about particle CNN and other media outlets. He is a fellow of both APS and
physics and cosmology the chapter on abiogenesis and evo- AAAS, and he was awarded the 2017 Gemant award from
lution. This book could have been one about the debate AIP for his science outreach efforts.

BOOKS RECEIVED
It Keeps Me Seeking: An Invitation from Science, Philosophy, Solid State Insurrection: How the Science of Substance
and Religion. Andrew W. Briggs, Hans Halvorson, and Made American Physics Matter. Joseph D. Martin. 296
Andrew Steane. 360 pp. Oxford U.P., New York, 2018. Price: pp. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburg, PA, 2018.
$25.95 (hardcover) ISBN 978-0-19-880828-2. Price: $45 (hardcover) ISBN 978-0-8220-4583-3.
A Student’s Guide to Analytical Mechanics. John L. Anxiety and the Equation: Understanding Boltzmann’s
Bohn. 216 pp. Cambridge U.P., New York, 2018. Price: Entropy. Eric Johnson. 180 pp. MIT Press, Cambridge,
$24.99 (paper) ISBN 978-1-316-50907-4. MA, 2018. Price: $22.95 (hardcover) ISBN 978-0-262-
Analytical Mechanics. Nivaldo A. Lemos. 472 pp. 03861-4.
Cambridge U.P., New York, 2018. Price: $79.99 (hard- Ludvig Lorenz: A Nineteenth-Century Theoretical
cover ISBN 978-1-108-41658-0. Physicist. Helge Kragh. 282 pp. The Royal Danish
The Scientific Method: Reflections from a Practioner. Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen, 2018.
Massimiliano Di Ventra. 125 pp. Oxford U.P., New York, Price: 240 DKK ($37) (paper) ISBN 978-87-7304-
2018. Price: $19.95 (paper) ISBN 978-0-19-882562-3. 417-9.

AJP Index to Advertisers

2019 AAPT Winter Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cover 2

AAPT Career Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cover 3
AAPT Membership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 881
AAPT Compadre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 883
AAPT eAlliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 884

960 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 86, No. 12, December 2018 Book Reviews 960