---
product_id: 105757073
title: "Beyond Weird: Why Everything You Thought You Knew about Quantum Physics Is Different"
price: "16 zł"
currency: PLN
in_stock: false
reviews_count: 13
url: https://www.desertcart.pl/products/105757073-beyond-weird-why-everything-you-thought-you-knew-about-quantum
store_origin: PL
region: Poland
---

# Beyond Weird: Why Everything You Thought You Knew about Quantum Physics Is Different

**Price:** 16 zł
**Availability:** ❌ Out of Stock

## Quick Answers

- **What is this?** Beyond Weird: Why Everything You Thought You Knew about Quantum Physics Is Different
- **How much does it cost?** 16 zł with free shipping
- **Is it available?** Currently out of stock
- **Where can I buy it?** [www.desertcart.pl](https://www.desertcart.pl/products/105757073-beyond-weird-why-everything-you-thought-you-knew-about-quantum)

## Best For

- Customers looking for quality international products

## Why This Product

- Free international shipping included
- Worldwide delivery with tracking
- 15-day hassle-free returns

## Description

A journey into the mysteries and meaning of quantum theory: "Gorgeously lucid text . . . easily the best book I've read on the subject." — The Washington Post "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." Since Niels Bohr said this many years ago, quantum mechanics has only been getting more shocking. We now realize that it's not really telling us that "weird" things happen out of sight, on the tiniest level, in the atomic world: rather, everything is quantum. But if quantum mechanics is correct, what seems obvious and right in our everyday world is built on foundations that don't seem obvious or right at all—or even possible. An exhilarating tour of the contemporary quantum landscape, Beyond Weird is a book about what quantum physics really means—and what it doesn't. Philip Ball offers an up-to-date, accessible account of the quest to come to grips with the most fundamental theory of physical reality, and to explain how its counterintuitive principles underpin the world we experience. Over the past decade it's become clear that quantum physics is less a theory about particles and waves, uncertainty and fuzziness, than a theory about information and knowledge—about what can be known, and how we can know it. Discoveries and experiments over the past few decades have called into question the meanings and limits of space and time, cause and effect, and, ultimately, of knowledge itself. The quantum world Ball shows us isn't a different world. It is our world, and if anything deserves to be called "weird," it's us. "Weighs up the competing interpretations, and the misconceptions, that have attached themselves to quantum theory in its 100-year history. . . . [A] laudable achievement."— Sunday Times "Ball is one of the finest contemporary writers about science. . . . His prose is a pleasure to read."— Wall Street Journal

Review: A readable account of current ideas on the meaning of Quantum Mechanics - This is a review of the Kindle edition of “Beyond Weird”, the format was easy to read. The book comes with a comprehensive bibliography which appears to be useful. It also has a good index. I imagine that the book will appeal to students and educated laymen alike. I found it absorbing and interesting. Hence the 5 stars. I will be rereading it and following up on some items in the bibliography. Firstly, this is not about how quantum mechanics is weirder than you ever thought. If you don’t know quantum mechanics (QM) is weird, it would be a good idea to introduce yourself to the history of the subject; you will see why It has this reputation. Neither is this a book from which you might teach yourself QM. You should seek out another if that is what you need. The book contains no mathematics or equations. It is an ideas book in which Ball provides the reader with an excellent account of the state of play as of 2018. I use the words “complex Hilbert space” in a quote from the book below. It is neither necessary to know what a complex Hilbert space is to read the book (or understand my review!) nor is it the case that if you know what this is then the book is a waste of time for you. Bohr and Einstein could not agree on what, if any reality underlay QM. It may be tempting (justifiably so) to give up, abandon further inquiry and dismiss QM as “weird”. After all, it remains true that attending “any meeting about the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics is like being in a holy city in great tumult. You will find all the religions with all their priests pitted in holy war”. The priests agree on the foundational scriptures, but they diverge on the interpretation. The experts are not of one mind. Ball invites us to go “Beyond” our concern with weirdness and bring ourselves up to date with current thinking about what the theory means. What underlying reality if any, does Schrödinger’s equation describe or even hint at? Paradoxes which have illuminated difficulties with the subject have been with us for many years. Schrödinger's Cat (is it, could it be, both dead and alive?) and the EPR paradox (does “quantum entanglement” entail instantaneous action at a distance, breaking relativity?) are amongst the conceptually difficult ideas tackled here. Interpretations of QM are explained and evaluated. We are taken through Bohr's (the Schrödinger equation tells us all that can be known) Everett and Deutsch's (many worlds interpretation), Qbism (an even stronger reliance Schrödinger than Bohr) and others. Currently, attempts are being made to find satisfying axiomatic foundations; some are described here. The motivation behind this can be appreciated if we compare an example of a “standard” set for QM like: “1. For every system there is a complex Hilbert space H. 2. States of the system correspond to projection operators onto H. 3. Those things that are observable somehow correspond to the eigenprojectors of Hermitian operators. 4. Isolated systems evolve according to the Schrödinger equation.” with the laws of motion underlying Newtonian mechanics: “1. Every object keeps moving at the same speed if no force is applied to it. If it is still to begin with, it stays still. 2. If a force is applied to an object, it accelerates in direct proportion to that force, and in the direction of that force.” 3. For every force that one body exerts on another, the other body exerts an equal force back in the opposite direction.” Ball points out that given the difference in the language in the two sets of axioms, it is not surprising that there is a push for a quantum reconstruction. He describes an informational approach to QM and why it is seen as potentially fruitful given the peculiarities and limitations of types of information available from quantum systems. I get the impression that the informational approach is his favourite. A substantial minority of practitioners in the field still favour Bohr's view. Ball is harshest with the many worlds interpretation. To repeat, I found this to be an excellent survey which has equiped me to venture deeper into the alleyways of that tumultuous city, listen to the priests and perhaps form an opinion of my own on the merits of their competing interpretations.
Review: A Great Discussion of the Explanatory Challenges but Fails to Consider a Platonic Realism Solution - I very much enjoyed the book; it was well researched and well written. What I didn’t like was that Ball failed to consider what I believe to be the best explanation for the seeming weirdness of quantum mechanics: Experimental data is being interpreted within the overly simplistic context of materialism/physicalism rather than within the context of Platonic realism. Admittedly materialism/physicalism is by far and away the most popular ontology (worldview) among scientists and philosophers of science. While it might not seem reasonable to replace materialism/physicalism based solely on the explanatory challenges posed by quantum mechanics there are a number of other explanatory challenges in other fields that might justify a new ontology. For example, on page 124 Ball writes: “Sure, you can ask questions about what is ‘really going on’, or about the mind-body problem or free will - but these are issues for philosophy, not physics.” Is it not possible that the mind-body problem and free will go unresolved because they are impossible to resolve within the context of materialism/physicalism? I would maintain that a new ontology should address as many outstanding explanatory challenges as possible with the minimum number of ontological commitments. It must also include falsification and/or verification criteria if it is to have any chance of being accepted by the greater scientific community. While not mentioned by Ball, the fields of medicine and experimental psychology also face difficult explanatory challenges. For 75 years placebo testing has been a required component of all drug trials. How it works is unknown but the consensus is that it does work. In experimental psychology a 2011 paper by Daryl Bem demonstrated the reality of precognition; his work has since been replicated by other labs. Retrocausation (an event in the future being the source of information received in the present) has been put forth as an explanation by defenders of materialism/physicalism. In subsequent research (Mossbridge and Ridan, 2018) it was shown that precognitive information is not about the future but about the most probable future. If retrocausation is to explain probabilistic precognition it would mean that an event that might not even take place in the future was the source of the precognitive information that was received in the present - this strikes me as magical thinking. The most basic question that an ontology must address is: How many realms are there? While Occam’s razor would suggest that “one” would be the best answer I would maintain that our shared reality is of such complexity that a single realm is not adequate to address all explanatory challenges. What views of reality are evinced by the scientific data? I maintain that science evinces at least three separate and distinct views of reality: 1. The data associated with classical physics evinces a macro view of reality that is characterized by determinism. 2. The data associated with quantum physics evinces a micro view of reality that is characterized by indeterminism. 3. The data associated with the social sciences evinces multiple concurrent mental views of reality characterized by both self awareness and self determination. It is difficult to explain how a single realm could give rise to all three views of reality; assigning each view to its own ontological realm would seem to be an option worth considering. This is exactly what Platonic realism does: the macro view can be attributed to Plato’s realm of being; the micro view can be attributed to Plato’s realm of becoming; the mental views can be attributed to Plato’s realm of the soul. While Plato’s writings in and of themselves are clearly not adequate to address the explanatory requirements of modern science I believe that they can provide a foundation on which the ideas of others may be interpreted. One such idea can be found in a 1989 paper by John Archibald Wheeler titled "Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search For Links" where Wheeler wrote: "To endlessness no alternative is evident but loop, such a loop as this: Physics gives rise to observer-participancy; observer-participancy gives rise to information; and information gives rise to physics." (pp. 313-314) While Wheeler intended that this process be grounded by materialism/physicalism, I do not see materialism/physicalism as being adequate for the following reasons: 1. The information needed to give rise to physics is not to be found in the natural universe. 2. The mechanism for consolidating the observer-participants input is not to be found in the natural universe. When interpreted within the context of Platonic realism, however, both of these can be said to reside in Plato’s expanded realm of being. In Plato’s ontology it is the demiurge that is said to give rise to the physical universe. Could this not be consistent with a process in the realm of being that reifies a digital image stored in the realm of being so as to create a new instance of the universe in the realm of becoming? In this Platonic interpretation of quantum mechanics the laws of classical physics would be said to describe processing within the realm of being whereas quantum theory would be said to describe the natural universe (the realm of becoming). This would in turn give rise to the startling conclusion that gravity is not a force in the natural universe but rather an algorithm in the realm of being. Should this be the case it would mean that: 1. There will never be a fully satisfactory theory of quantum gravity for the simple reasons that quantum gravity does not exist. 2. The graviton will never be detected because quantum gravity does not exist. 3. The weak interactive massive particle (WIMP) will never be detected because dark matter does not exist. 4. The hierarchy problem in particle physics does not exist. How does this enhanced Platonic realism address the explanatory challenges posed by the placebo effect and probabilistic precognition? The placebo effect requires one to explain how the mind can be the cause of changes to the body. In my proposed enhanced Platonic realism it is information that flows from the mind (located in the realm of the soul) to the realm of being where it causes the reification process to select a different digital image of the universe for subsequent reification. Probabilistic precognition is explained by the presence in the realm of being of multiple digital images of the universe - only a proper subset of which are ever selected for reification.

## Features

- Highlight, take notes, and search in the book

## Technical Specifications

| Specification | Value |
|---------------|-------|
| Best Sellers Rank | #160,896 in Kindle Store ( See Top 100 in Kindle Store ) #48 in Quantum Theory (Kindle Store) #76 in Quantum Theory (Books) #147 in Science History & Philosophy |

## Images

![Beyond Weird: Why Everything You Thought You Knew about Quantum Physics Is Different - Image 1](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/91zcoR9tAwL.jpg)

## Customer Reviews

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ A readable account of current ideas on the meaning of Quantum Mechanics
*by P***N on February 28, 2019*

This is a review of the Kindle edition of “Beyond Weird”, the format was easy to read. The book comes with a comprehensive bibliography which appears to be useful. It also has a good index. I imagine that the book will appeal to students and educated laymen alike. I found it absorbing and interesting. Hence the 5 stars. I will be rereading it and following up on some items in the bibliography. Firstly, this is not about how quantum mechanics is weirder than you ever thought. If you don’t know quantum mechanics (QM) is weird, it would be a good idea to introduce yourself to the history of the subject; you will see why It has this reputation. Neither is this a book from which you might teach yourself QM. You should seek out another if that is what you need. The book contains no mathematics or equations. It is an ideas book in which Ball provides the reader with an excellent account of the state of play as of 2018. I use the words “complex Hilbert space” in a quote from the book below. It is neither necessary to know what a complex Hilbert space is to read the book (or understand my review!) nor is it the case that if you know what this is then the book is a waste of time for you. Bohr and Einstein could not agree on what, if any reality underlay QM. It may be tempting (justifiably so) to give up, abandon further inquiry and dismiss QM as “weird”. After all, it remains true that attending “any meeting about the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics is like being in a holy city in great tumult. You will find all the religions with all their priests pitted in holy war”. The priests agree on the foundational scriptures, but they diverge on the interpretation. The experts are not of one mind. Ball invites us to go “Beyond” our concern with weirdness and bring ourselves up to date with current thinking about what the theory means. What underlying reality if any, does Schrödinger’s equation describe or even hint at? Paradoxes which have illuminated difficulties with the subject have been with us for many years. Schrödinger's Cat (is it, could it be, both dead and alive?) and the EPR paradox (does “quantum entanglement” entail instantaneous action at a distance, breaking relativity?) are amongst the conceptually difficult ideas tackled here. Interpretations of QM are explained and evaluated. We are taken through Bohr's (the Schrödinger equation tells us all that can be known) Everett and Deutsch's (many worlds interpretation), Qbism (an even stronger reliance Schrödinger than Bohr) and others. Currently, attempts are being made to find satisfying axiomatic foundations; some are described here. The motivation behind this can be appreciated if we compare an example of a “standard” set for QM like: “1. For every system there is a complex Hilbert space H. 2. States of the system correspond to projection operators onto H. 3. Those things that are observable somehow correspond to the eigenprojectors of Hermitian operators. 4. Isolated systems evolve according to the Schrödinger equation.” with the laws of motion underlying Newtonian mechanics: “1. Every object keeps moving at the same speed if no force is applied to it. If it is still to begin with, it stays still. 2. If a force is applied to an object, it accelerates in direct proportion to that force, and in the direction of that force.” 3. For every force that one body exerts on another, the other body exerts an equal force back in the opposite direction.” Ball points out that given the difference in the language in the two sets of axioms, it is not surprising that there is a push for a quantum reconstruction. He describes an informational approach to QM and why it is seen as potentially fruitful given the peculiarities and limitations of types of information available from quantum systems. I get the impression that the informational approach is his favourite. A substantial minority of practitioners in the field still favour Bohr's view. Ball is harshest with the many worlds interpretation. To repeat, I found this to be an excellent survey which has equiped me to venture deeper into the alleyways of that tumultuous city, listen to the priests and perhaps form an opinion of my own on the merits of their competing interpretations.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐ A Great Discussion of the Explanatory Challenges but Fails to Consider a Platonic Realism Solution
*by C***E on April 23, 2024*

I very much enjoyed the book; it was well researched and well written. What I didn’t like was that Ball failed to consider what I believe to be the best explanation for the seeming weirdness of quantum mechanics: Experimental data is being interpreted within the overly simplistic context of materialism/physicalism rather than within the context of Platonic realism. Admittedly materialism/physicalism is by far and away the most popular ontology (worldview) among scientists and philosophers of science. While it might not seem reasonable to replace materialism/physicalism based solely on the explanatory challenges posed by quantum mechanics there are a number of other explanatory challenges in other fields that might justify a new ontology. For example, on page 124 Ball writes: “Sure, you can ask questions about what is ‘really going on’, or about the mind-body problem or free will - but these are issues for philosophy, not physics.” Is it not possible that the mind-body problem and free will go unresolved because they are impossible to resolve within the context of materialism/physicalism? I would maintain that a new ontology should address as many outstanding explanatory challenges as possible with the minimum number of ontological commitments. It must also include falsification and/or verification criteria if it is to have any chance of being accepted by the greater scientific community. While not mentioned by Ball, the fields of medicine and experimental psychology also face difficult explanatory challenges. For 75 years placebo testing has been a required component of all drug trials. How it works is unknown but the consensus is that it does work. In experimental psychology a 2011 paper by Daryl Bem demonstrated the reality of precognition; his work has since been replicated by other labs. Retrocausation (an event in the future being the source of information received in the present) has been put forth as an explanation by defenders of materialism/physicalism. In subsequent research (Mossbridge and Ridan, 2018) it was shown that precognitive information is not about the future but about the most probable future. If retrocausation is to explain probabilistic precognition it would mean that an event that might not even take place in the future was the source of the precognitive information that was received in the present - this strikes me as magical thinking. The most basic question that an ontology must address is: How many realms are there? While Occam’s razor would suggest that “one” would be the best answer I would maintain that our shared reality is of such complexity that a single realm is not adequate to address all explanatory challenges. What views of reality are evinced by the scientific data? I maintain that science evinces at least three separate and distinct views of reality: 1. The data associated with classical physics evinces a macro view of reality that is characterized by determinism. 2. The data associated with quantum physics evinces a micro view of reality that is characterized by indeterminism. 3. The data associated with the social sciences evinces multiple concurrent mental views of reality characterized by both self awareness and self determination. It is difficult to explain how a single realm could give rise to all three views of reality; assigning each view to its own ontological realm would seem to be an option worth considering. This is exactly what Platonic realism does: the macro view can be attributed to Plato’s realm of being; the micro view can be attributed to Plato’s realm of becoming; the mental views can be attributed to Plato’s realm of the soul. While Plato’s writings in and of themselves are clearly not adequate to address the explanatory requirements of modern science I believe that they can provide a foundation on which the ideas of others may be interpreted. One such idea can be found in a 1989 paper by John Archibald Wheeler titled "Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search For Links" where Wheeler wrote: "To endlessness no alternative is evident but loop, such a loop as this: Physics gives rise to observer-participancy; observer-participancy gives rise to information; and information gives rise to physics." (pp. 313-314) While Wheeler intended that this process be grounded by materialism/physicalism, I do not see materialism/physicalism as being adequate for the following reasons: 1. The information needed to give rise to physics is not to be found in the natural universe. 2. The mechanism for consolidating the observer-participants input is not to be found in the natural universe. When interpreted within the context of Platonic realism, however, both of these can be said to reside in Plato’s expanded realm of being. In Plato’s ontology it is the demiurge that is said to give rise to the physical universe. Could this not be consistent with a process in the realm of being that reifies a digital image stored in the realm of being so as to create a new instance of the universe in the realm of becoming? In this Platonic interpretation of quantum mechanics the laws of classical physics would be said to describe processing within the realm of being whereas quantum theory would be said to describe the natural universe (the realm of becoming). This would in turn give rise to the startling conclusion that gravity is not a force in the natural universe but rather an algorithm in the realm of being. Should this be the case it would mean that: 1. There will never be a fully satisfactory theory of quantum gravity for the simple reasons that quantum gravity does not exist. 2. The graviton will never be detected because quantum gravity does not exist. 3. The weak interactive massive particle (WIMP) will never be detected because dark matter does not exist. 4. The hierarchy problem in particle physics does not exist. How does this enhanced Platonic realism address the explanatory challenges posed by the placebo effect and probabilistic precognition? The placebo effect requires one to explain how the mind can be the cause of changes to the body. In my proposed enhanced Platonic realism it is information that flows from the mind (located in the realm of the soul) to the realm of being where it causes the reification process to select a different digital image of the universe for subsequent reification. Probabilistic precognition is explained by the presence in the realm of being of multiple digital images of the universe - only a proper subset of which are ever selected for reification.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you need to read this
*by S***N on August 17, 2019*

I found Philip Ball's book to be an excellent discussion of how difficult it is to reconcile QM with our ordinary perception of the physical world and classical physics. If you're like me and have read many different interpretations of QM from non-physicists you'll quickly realize how much stranger QM is than you've been led to believe. It's not that our conscious awareness creates reality, but that reality seemingly has no definite shape apart from our interaction with it. The author covers the different interpretations of QM and show's them all too insufficient in explaining how and why it works. But you'll definitely get an appreciation of how diabolically challenging it is to get a grasp of exactly what makes QM work. Basically, no one knows. Ball is extremely thorough in dismantling all your previous ideas about the subject. Now personally, I've been fascinated by the Everettian "Many Worlds" approach, and an even newer multiverse paradigm called the "Many Interacting Worlds" model, pioneered by Howard Wiseman, Andre Deckert, and Michael Hall, which models how parallel realities can interact in complete agreement with existing QM results. Ball is none too kind to these type of ideas, he devotes a whole chapter to taking Everett''s Many Worlds model apart. While I don't agree with all his counter- arguments, he's asking the right questions, like what is nature of consciousness? At least he's taking the Many Worlds approaches seriously even if he completely rejects them. I was particularly fascinated by Ball’s discussion of Heisenberg and the ‘uncertainty’ principle. Apparently, this idea has not been presented properly in part due to Heisenberg’s lack of understanding of how microscopes work. It’s not so much uncertainty as and ‘undecided principle.” Ball explains that the more you know of a particle's position, the less you know about its momentum, not for experimental reasons but because these “conjugate variables” do not work by commutative math! It's similar to a cooking recipe where the order you add the ingredients affects the final flavor. So "uncertainty" is a mathematical issue, not an observational one and even Bohr didn’t explain it properly. Again, the main point is that quantum properties are never totally available to us at once: the more you know of one, the less the other. And ever towering figures like Heisenberg made mistakes that still linger in our thinking about QM. Ball is an advocate of so-called "Quantum Reconstruction", a complete reformulation of QM. He personally favors an information-based approach but he even finds this idea limiting. So in the end, he doesn't show us what direction to take beyond a few generalities, but shows us we need to get going there anyway. So we can say that he's getting the ball rolling (pun intended). As a corollary to this book, you'll also enjoy Adam Becker's book What is Real? . I'd also recommend Sean Caroll's Something Deeply Hidden for a completely opposing view of the viability of Everett's Many Worlds' Interpretation. (Dr. Simeon Hein is the author of Black Swan Ghosts: A sociologist encounters witnesses to unexplained aerial craft, their occupants, and other elements of the multiverse , Opening Minds: A Journey of Extraordinary Encounters, Crop Circles, and Resonance , and Planetary Intelligence: 101 Easy Steps to Energy, Well Being, and Natural Insight. )

---

## Why Shop on Desertcart?

- 🛒 **Trusted by 1.3+ Million Shoppers** — Serving international shoppers since 2016
- 🌍 **Shop Globally** — Access 737+ million products across 21 categories
- 💰 **No Hidden Fees** — All customs, duties, and taxes included in the price
- 🔄 **15-Day Free Returns** — Hassle-free returns (30 days for PRO members)
- 🔒 **Secure Payments** — Trusted payment options with buyer protection
- ⭐ **TrustPilot Rated 4.5/5** — Based on 8,000+ happy customer reviews

**Shop now:** [https://www.desertcart.pl/products/105757073-beyond-weird-why-everything-you-thought-you-knew-about-quantum](https://www.desertcart.pl/products/105757073-beyond-weird-why-everything-you-thought-you-knew-about-quantum)

---

*Product available on Desertcart Poland*
*Store origin: PL*
*Last updated: 2026-05-24*