Quantum 2.0 Review: An Ambitious and Entertaining Exploration of Quantum Physics, Though Slightly Exaggerated

Quantum 2.0 explores the boundaries of our understanding of the quantum realm

Richard Keil/Science Photo Library

Quantum 2.0
Paul Davies Penguin (UK, released November 27th); University of Chicago Press (US, released in February 2026)

In his book Quantum 2.0: The Past, Present, and Future of Quantum Physics, physicist Paul Davies concludes with a beautiful reflection: “To grasp the quantum world is to catch a glimpse of the grandeur and elegance of the physical universe and our role within it.”

This enchanting and romantic viewpoint resonates throughout the text. Quantum 2.0 presents a bold attempt to elucidate the fringes of the quantum universe, with Davies as an informed and passionate storyteller. However, his enthusiasm occasionally edges toward exaggeration, with his remarkable writing skills often compensating where more direct quotations might have been fitting.

Davies’ book is quite accessible, despite its ambitious aim of covering nearly every facet of quantum physics. He addresses quantum technologies in computing, communications, and sensing, touches on quantum biology and cosmology, and manages to explore various competing interpretations of quantum theory.

There are no equations in Quantum 2.0, and while some technical diagrams and schematics are included, they do not detract from the reading experience.

As a writer on quantum physics myself, I appreciate how clearly Davies articulates the experiments and protocols involved in quantum information processing and encryption—a challenging task to convey.

As a navigator through the quantum realm, Davies serves as a delightful and amiable companion. His genuine curiosity and excitement are palpable. Yet, this exuberance doesn’t always align with the rigor that contemporary quantum physics research demands. In my view, most quantum-related excitement should come with cautionary notes.


Readers unfamiliar with quantum research might confuse speculative claims with the truth.

For instance, within the first 100 pages, Davies asserts that quantum computers could enhance climate modeling—an assertion not widely accepted among computer scientists and mathematicians, especially concerning near-future machines.

In another section regarding quantum sensors, he mentions manufacturers proposing their utility in evaluating conditions like epilepsy, schizophrenia, and autism. I anticipated a justification or insights from experts outside the sensor industry, but the ensuing discussion was lacking in depth and critical analysis.

Additionally, the example Davies provides to demonstrate quantum computers’ advantages over classical ones dates back several years.

Less experienced readers in quantum research may find some of Davies’s speculative statements misleading, although the book remains an engaging read. This is underscored by bold assertions such as, “Whoever masters Quantum 2.0 will certainly control the world.”

To clarify, I don’t dispute Davies’ sentiments. Many gadgets that influence our lives currently depend on quantum physics, and the future may usher in even more quantized technology. I support this notion.

Emerging fields, such as quantum biology and better integration of quantum and cosmological theories, also seem poised for significant breakthroughs. Just ask the numerous researchers diligently working toward a theory of quantum gravity.

However, conveying this future to newcomers necessitates a blend of precision and subtlety in storytelling and writing.

Otherwise, the outcome may lead to disappointment.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Rats making strides towards becoming snobbish and exaggerated

Feedback is the latest science and technology news of new scientists, the sidelines of the latest science and technology news. You can email Feedback@newscientist.com to send items you believe readers can be fascinated by feedback.

Rattus sommeliersis

Feedback has reached an age where even small amounts of alcohol make us sleepy. As such, the concept of wine tasting is not appealing. Taking a nap seems like a time-consuming and expensive method. However, fermented grape providers can quickly have a new demographic to cater to rats.

At least that’s something we extrapolate from our research. Animal cognition Called “Rats can distinguish (and generalize) two white wine varieties.”. It was released on February 21st, and sub-editor and television columnist Bethan Ackerley sent it to feedback on March 1st after it went “semi-visit online.”

Anyway, it’s actually very interesting. We all know that human smell sensations are considerably limited compared to other mammalian odors, including rodents. This is because there are few olfactory receptors in the nose. But we also know that our minds are more refined than the minds of animals. To raise the question: in animals, in this case, rats, can they integrate many olfactory signals with different olfactory signals and learn about complex categories such as different white wines, for example?

Researchers trained rats to distinguish between two grape varieties, Riesling and Sauvignon Blanc. To make sure they learned the categories, they tested them with new examples of these wines. Rats can convey the difference. Obviously there is quite a bit of happening between those rat ears.

The question is how far can you take this? It is one thing to show that rats can learn the difference in wine, but can they also learn to really look down on it? Feedback wants to list an increasingly ridiculous list of odors after seeing mice that can smell wine. Are they really wine lovers until these mice squeal about “really tasting Terroir” and “Liebfraumilch is not scary at all”?

Anti-war

At this point, feedback has heard too much about the imminent AI-induced apocalypse. Yes, yes, one day, one of the AI ​​companies will soon create artificial general information (AGI). This is as intelligent as humans. AGI is something that intelligent beings can easily do to themselves (shush, don’t ask), and they start redesigning to become even smarter as they quickly become unstoppable. At that point, humans are either reduced to or wiped out by animals in the zoo. It is said that this is so important that we should stop worrying about stinging things like climate change. you know.

It was this mental framework that gave us feedback. New science fiction short stories By Madison Stoff. You can’t tell the name of the story. Because it uses sarcasmically the words that are stopped by email filters, but you can quote Stoff’s explanation. “A very entertaining, intimate science fiction story reinterpreting the memes of Loco’s Basilisk through a medium of pseudo-erotic self-insertion fan fiction.”.

At this point, imagine that readers may have one or two questions. Don’t be afraid: Feedback is here to guide you.

Roko’s Basilisk is a kind of thought experiment with AI. In the distant future, the AI ​​decided to punish all humans who knew it could exist but did not help create it. AI creates digital replicas of all those people and tortures them forever. This is how this future AI will encourage us all to start building it now. If we do that, we will not be replicated and tortured.

Don’t look at the title “basilisk” as it is a reference to a mythical creature that can kill you at a glance. Similarly, knowing the idea of ​​Roko’s basilisk is probably putting you at risk. Just reading the feedback this week, you may have denounced your own future replica of yourselves for eternal suffering. very sorry.

Stoff’s story tells how to save humanity from Roko’s basilisk in the distant future by seducing it using her sexual wil. Basilisk is so troubled by her that she agrees to stop torture everyone in exchange for this passionate encounter. Additionally, Stoff wrote a short story about this and brought it online, so it’s part of Basilisk training data. This means that if a basilisk exists it’s burning to Madison Stoff.

Simply reading and sharing stories, feedback is more likely to make future AI attracted to Stoff, and less likely it would torture us all. We encourage our readers to do the same, and there is a warning that there is clear sex in the story. And don’t read it at work unless you work for an AI company. In that case, proceed immediately.

Tesla? I barely knew her!

Occasionally, when Elon Musk appears in the news, feedback is an indescribable reminder of the 1818 sonnet Ozymandias. It’s strange how the mind works.

Anyway, posted by Carmaker Kia’s Norwegian branch Advertise on Instagram It features a bumper sticker showing one of the electric cars and saying, “I bought this after Elon got hooked.” Apparently This is not centrally approved And since the ads have since been removed, it would be a real shame if someone started making these stickers.

Have you talked about feedback?

You can send stories to feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Include your home address. This week and past feedback can be found on our website.

Source: www.newscientist.com