Trespassing on Einstein's lawn A father, a daughter, the meaning of nothing, and the beginning of everything

Amanda Gefter

Book - 2014

"Opening with the author's attempt to sneak herself and her father into a conference attended by the planet's great scientific thinkers (including Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, and coiner of the term "black hole" John Wheeler), Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn takes readers on an exhilarating and memorable journey to the mysterious heart of the universe"--

Saved in:

2nd Floor Show me where

530.01/Gefter
1 / 1 copies available
Location Call Number   Status
2nd Floor 530.01/Gefter Checked In
Subjects
Published
New York : Bantam Books [2014]
©2014
Language
English
Main Author
Amanda Gefter (-)
Physical Description
418 pages : illustrations ; 25 cm
Bibliography
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN
9780345531438
Contents unavailable.
Review by Choice Review

This book recounts a daughter and her father's exploration into the esoteric realm of fundamental physics and cosmology. Before becoming a science writer, Amanda Gefter and Warren Gefter (radiologist) gate-crashed a gathering of physicists where they managed to speak to John Wheeler, who gave them cryptic quips on the nature of reality as he derived it from quantum physics. Inspired by the experience, the father-daughter team went on to meet other giants in the world of strings, parallel universes, horizon complementarity, and more, extracting from them conversational bits on world pictures as painted by quantum physicists. Along with descriptions of encounters with Leonard Susskind, Ed Witten, David Gross, et al., Gefter fills the book with the worldviews of current physics, spicing it all with anecdotal tidbits. In the hermeneutics of some of the major players, physics has been gradually unraveling visions of reality of which Buddhist metaphysicians and Hindu Vedantins would be proud. The book should be entertaining for quantum physicists, informative for average science-literate readers, and enjoyable as a fascinating story of the quest for the nature of ultimate reality. --V. V. Raman, Rochester Institute of Technology

Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by New York Times Review

FATHER-DAUGHTER MEMOIRS have an inherent appeal, especially when the father and daughter are on an almost preposterous quest. There's such a quest in "Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn": to uncover the nature of reality. It all began when Wayne Gefter, a radiologist "prone to posing Zen-koan-like questions," asked his 15-year-old daughter, Amanda, over dinner at a Chinese restaurant near their home just outside Philadelphia: "How would you define nothing?" Wayne Gefter had been thinking about this for a while, he told his daughter. He defines "nothing" as a state of infinite, unbounded homogeneity. "Think about it," he said. "A 'thing' is defined by its boundaries. By what differentiates it from something else. That's why when you draw something, it's enough to draw its outline. . . . The edges define the 'thing.'" What thrilled him about this insight was that it simplified the search for how the universe began. It transformed the cosmologist's eternal conundrum - how something could emerge from nothing - and made it potentially knowable, recast as a search for the boundaries themselves. "I think we should figure it out," he said. And his teenage daughter - sullen, rebellious, wallowing in existential dread - smiled for the first time "in what felt like years." The project proved to be a gift from a wise, insightful father. It was Wayne Gefter's way of rescuing his child. Tracking down the meaning of nothing - and, by extension, secrets about the origin of the universe and whether observer-independent reality exists - became the defining project of their lives. They spent hours together working on the puzzle, two dark heads bent over their physics books far into the night. Along the way, Amanda Gefter stumbled into a career for which she seems especially suited: She became a science journalist. At first it was a lark, a way to get free press passes to conferences where she and her father could ask questions of the greatest minds in quantum mechanics, string theory and cosmology. But within a short time, as she started getting assignments, journalism became a calling, and an identity. The first conference the Gefters crashed was one honoring the theoretical physicist John Wheeler, who was 90 at the time. Father and daughter, giddy with their proximity to the rock stars of the field ("I just touched Brian Greene!"), wanted to ask Wheeler one critical question: "If observers create reality, where do the observers come from?" But the great man responded in riddles. "The universe is a self-excited circuit," Wheeler said. "The boundary of a boundary is zero." The unraveling of these mysteries propels the next 400 or so pages. Their path meanders for a time, but father and daughter start to focus soon after Amanda Gefter enters the philosophy of science program at the London School of Economics. (Just as her foray into journalism was a way to get into conferences, her decision to go to grad school also had an ulterior motive: to get the attention of a famous literary agent by imitating the career path of one of his illustrious clients, the futurist Nick Bostrom.) But when she has an epiphany - that for something to be real, it must be invariant - she flies home to share it with her father. They discuss her insight over breakfast at a neighborhood haunt, where they make a list on what they will affectionately call "the IHOP napkin." They list all the possible "ingredients of ultimate reality," planning to test each item for whether it is "real," that is whether it is invariant and can exist in the absence of an observer. Over the course of the book, the Gefters tick off the phenomena on the IHOP napkin, as their readings and interviews reveal that each item in turn is observerdependent. Space? Observer-dependent, and therefore not real. Gravity, electromagnetism, angular momentum? No, no, and no. In the end, every putative "ingredient of ultimate reality" is eliminated, including one they hadn't even bothered to put on the list because it seemed weird to: reality itself. What remained was an unsettling and essential insight: that "physics isn't the machinery behind the workings of the world; physics is the machinery behind the illusion that there is a world." I wanted so much to like this book. A great premise, right? An intimate memoir about a father and daughter that can teach us a little something about physics along the way. But it turned out to be a hard book for me to like - maybe because it's not actually a father-daughter memoir at all. For one thing, Wayne Gefter disappears from the main action all too quickly. After the first conference in Princeton, he's unable to get away from his busy practice to attend the next one, and Amanda Gefter has to go it alone. (That this pulling back might have been deliberate on his part, a way to help his daughter spread her wings, isn't something she considers.) He re-emerges mostly as a foil for his daughter's epiphanies, an eager audience for her latest mind-blowing interview. And there's not really enough about Amanda Gefter, either, beyond her supersize brain. There are no friends in this memoir, few activities other than reading, writing and thinking. We know she has a brother, but he's never in sight; her mother is a cipher; and her father talks to her endlessly about physics and almost nothing else. A college boyfriend is mentioned in passing. Despite the parade of illustrious physicists she name-checks, it remains a strangely unpopulated book, with ordinary people brought onstage mostly to be made fun of, like the "overweight sweatpant-clad patrons" of the IHOP where the reality checklist was made, or a feminist in her class at L.S.E. who objects to "explicitly male-centric" scientific terminology such as "force" and "balls." ("Seriously? Balls?" Gefter writes. "I coughed to cover my snickering.") WHAT WE'RE LEFT with, finally, is being inside Gefter's head as she falls deeper into the thickets of cosmology and quantum theory - and, later, as she hangs out with famous physicists. No one wants her to dumb down her explanation of these complex ideas, but with endlessly dense sentence upon sentence - sentences like "the probability distribution mapped out by the bright and dark stripes is not the distribution encoded in the wave function of a single photon" - a physics naïf will be totally befuddled. Science writers ought to clarify, not confuse. As I struggled with the language, I found myself wondering whether this book could have been written differently. Maybe the subject matter is just too abstruse, or maybe I'm just too dumb? In fact, Gefter herself handed me the answer. She inserts an early book proposal she sent to that famous literary agent, with the working title "Hunting the Snark," a homage to the Lewis Carroll poem about a search for a creature that keeps eluding discovery. In the proposal, she clarifies how cosmology and quantum mechanics have evolved as scientists come to grips with the fact that things they had taken to be real - quantum particles, space-time, gravity, dimension - turn out to be observer-dependent. All of a sudden, the underlying arguments and themes became clearer; when Amanda Gefter wants to make the complex understandable, she can. The agent sent the book proposal back and told her to come up with something sexier, something that was more clearly in her own voice. But in trying to pull this off, I fear, she seems to have become unmoored. Rather than applying her smarts to filter out complexities and distill a digestible story, she opted to make this more of a narrative, by explicating her every thought, no matter how convoluted, and leading us down whatever trail she imagined or explored. A true cosmology groupie might relish the diversions and the long, detailed renderings of conversations with some of the biggest names in physics. But I found myself wishing she had stuck with the Snark. ROBIN MARANTZ HENIG is a contributing writer for The Times Magazine and the co-author, with Samantha Henig, of "Twentysomething: Why Do Young Adults Seem Stuck?"

Copyright (c) The New York Times Company [March 9, 2014]
Review by Kirkus Book Review

Part science writing and part memoir, this adventurous fact-finding romp takes readers across the landscape of ideas about the universe, calling on the expertise of the biggest names in scienceand also the author's lifelong partner in her pursuit of the meaning of everything: her father. Gefter, an MIT Knight Science Journalism fellow and founding editor of CultureLab at New Scientist, is a crafty storyteller and journalist; she describes how she jump-started her career by crashing physics conferences and faking her way into interviews with world-famous physicists. Fueled by an insatiable curiosity about how the universe could be at once governed by the laws of cosmology (which define large-scale properties of the universe) and also by the laws of quantum mechanics (which define the behavior of microscopic particles), the author embarked on a scientific scavenger hunt while chasing leads across time and space. Gefter makes even the most esoteric conceptsand there are a lot of them in this booklucid and approachable. From string theory to the multiverse to the holographic principle, the author's exuberance for physics and the possibility that cutting-edge theories may lead to a new understanding of "reality" is evident in her passionate prose. Underlying the joys of scientific pursuit is the author's formative relationship with her father, who first asked the big question"How would you define nothing?"that inspired her yearslong quest to define how "nothing" and "everything" can be explained by the forces that govern the universe. What she discovered about the new frontier of quantum cosmology and the importance of the role of the individual observer is astonishing and awesome, and Gefter's book is a useful presentation of this thrilling ontological shift for a general audience. Beautifully written and hugely entertaining, this book is a heartfelt introduction to the many mind-bending theories in contemporary physics.]] Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

chapter 1 Crashing the Ultimate Reality Party It's hard to know where to begin. What even counts as a beginning? I could say my story begins in a Chinese restaurant, circa 1995, when my father asked me a question about nothing. More likely it begins circa 14 billion years ago, when the so-­called universe was allegedly born, broiling and thick with existence. Then again, I've come to suspect that that story is only beginning right now. I realize how weird that must sound. Trust me, it gets weirder. As for my story, it probably begins the day I lied and said I was a journalist. Not that I knew at the time that it was a beginning. There's no way I could have known how far the whole thing would go. That I'd soon be hanging out with the world's most brilliant physicists. That I'd turn a minor deception into an entire career. I could never have guessed that I'd be getting emails from Stephen Hawking, lunching with Nobel laureates, or stalking a man in a Panama hat. I never once imagined driving through the desert with my father to Los Alamos, or poring over fragile manuscripts in search of clues to a cosmic riddle. If I had stopped to think about it, I couldn't have foreseen that one little lie, one impulsive decision to go somewhere I didn't belong, would launch an all-­consuming hunt for ultimate reality. But the strangest part is that I no longer believe that any of these things is the beginning. Because after everything that's happened, after everything I've learned, I've come to see that this story begins with you. With you opening a book, hearing the soft crack of a spine, the whisper of a turning page. Don't get me wrong--­I'd love to say that this is my story. My universe. My book. But after everything I've been through, I'm pretty certain that it's yours. I was working in a magazine office when the lie was born. That was the idea, anyway--­"working" in an "office." In reality I was stuffing envelopes in the dusty one-­bedroom apartment of a guy named Rick. The idea was that I worked for Manhattan magazine. The reality was that I worked for Manhattan Bride. Manhattan covered New York's socialite charity-­event circuit, but the magazine was bordering on extinction when I first took the job, and it was laid to rest shortly after. Rick's newly launched glossy bridal magazine, on the other hand, was alive and well. So even though I spent most days fielding calls from florists and cake decorators, and one long afternoon scowling in an obscenely puffy wedding gown, I continued to tell people that I worked for Manhattan magazine. It sounded better. I was there in the office, wondering if I could use the rubber-band ball to fling myself back to Brooklyn, when I spotted the article in The New York Times. John Archibald Wheeler, leading light of theoretical physics, poet laureate of existence, had just turned ninety and physicists from around the world were heading to Princeton to celebrate. "This weekend," the article read, "the Really Big Questions that Dr. Wheeler loves will be on the table when prominent scientists gather at a conference center here in his honor for a symposium modestly titled 'Science and Ultimate Reality.' " As it happened, I was burning to ask Wheeler one particular Really Big Question. If only I were a "prominent scientist." I slumped back in my seat and gazed absentmindedly at an old Manhattan cover hanging on the wall. And then it hit me. I waited until Rick left to get lunch, then picked up the phone, called the people in charge of publicity for the conference, and told them, in the most professional voice I could muster, that I was a journalist calling from Manhattan magazine and I was interested in covering the event. "Oh, of course, we would love you to come," they said. "Great," I said. "Put me down plus one." I was utterly certain that these kind public relations people had never heard of Manhattan magazine. Most people in New York, let alone the rest of the world, had never heard of any such publication, but when I told people I worked for Manhattan magazine they always said, "Oh, of course!" Manhattan magazine is just a name that everyone thinks they know. Only they don't. And that, I realized, was my ticket to Science and Ultimate Reality. I was equally certain that these same PR people assumed that my "plus one" would be a fellow journalist or a photographer there to shoot pictures as I covered my big story. I picked up the phone and called my father. "Clear your schedule for this weekend. We're going to Princeton." My sudden urge to crash a physics conference with my father can be traced to a conversation seven years earlier. I was fifteen at the time, and my father had taken me out for dinner at our favorite Chinese restaurant near our home in a small suburb just west of Philadelphia. Usually we ate there with my mother and older brother, but this time it was just the two of us. I was pushing a cashew around my plate with a chopstick when he looked at me intently and asked, "How would you define nothing?" It was a strange dinner-­table question, to be sure, but not entirely out of character for my father, who, thanks to his days as an intellectual hippie Buddhist back in the sixties, was prone to posing Zen-­koan-­like questions. I had discovered that side of him the day I came across his college yearbook, flipping pages only to discover a photo of my father sitting shirtless in a lotus pose reading a copy of Alan Watts's This Is It-- a hilarious sight considering that these days he was a radiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, where he not only wore a shirt every day but often sported a well-­coordinated tie, too. He had made a name for himself by explaining how a whole array of lung diseases were caused by a single kind of fungus, and by inventing the disposable nipple marker--­a sort of pastie that you stick on someone's nipple when they're getting a chest X-­ray so the radiologists don't mistake the nipple's shadow for a tumor. But behind all the fungus and nipples, that groovy lotus-­posing dude was still in there waiting for a chance to speak up. When he did, he would offer unlikely morsels of parental guidance, like, "There's something about reality you need to know. I know it seems like there's you and then there's the rest of the world outside you. You feel that separation, but it's all an illusion. Inside, outside--­it's all just one thing." As a dogmatically skeptical teenager, I had my own Zen-­like practice of zoning out when adults offered me advice, but when it came to my father I listened--­maybe because when he spoke it sounded less like an authoritarian command and more like the confession of a secret. It's all an illusion. Now here he was speaking in that same quietly intense tone, leaning in so as not to let the other diners overhear, asking me how I'd define nothing. I wondered if he was asking me about nothing because he suspected I was entertaining some kind of nihilistic streak. I was a contemplative but restless kid, the kind that parents describe as "hard to handle." In truth I think I was just bored and not cut out for the suburbs. An aspiring writer with a learner's permit, I had read Jack Kerouac and I was itching to hit the road. To make matters worse, I had discovered philosophy. When you're fifteen, boredom plus suburbia plus existentialism equals trouble. I couldn't imagine Sisyphus happy, and frankly, I didn't bother to try. Kurt Cobain had offed himself and I didn't believe in math. I had read somewhere that between the numbers 1 and 2 there were an infinite number of numbers, and I just kept thinking, how do you ever get to 2? My mother, a math teacher, would valiantly attempt to tutor me in geometry, but I'd refuse on principle. "Sure, I'll find that area," I'd say, "just as soon as you explain to me how you get to 2." She'd throw up her hands in defeat and storm off, leaving me to fail the class as a conscientious objector. It was Zeno's angst, in retrospect, but no one told me that then. "How would I define nothing? I guess I'd define it as the absence of something. The absence of everything. Why?" "I've been thinking about it for years," he said, "this question of how you can get something from nothing. It just seemed so impossible, but I figured we must be thinking about nothing the wrong way. And then the other day I was at the mechanic waiting for my car to be fixed and it just hit me! I finally understood it." "You understood nothing?" He nodded excitedly. "I thought, what if you had a state that was infinite, unbounded, and perfectly the same everywhere?" I shrugged. "I'm guessing it would be nothing?" "Right! Think about it--­a 'thing' is defined by its boundaries. By what differentiates it from something else. That's why when you draw something, it's enough to draw its outline. Its edges. The edges define the 'thing.' But if you have a completely homogeneous state with no edges, and it's infinite so there's nothing else to differentiate it from . . . it would contain no 'things.' It would be nothing!" I spooned some more rice onto my plate. "Okay . . ." My father continued, his excitement mounting. "Usually people think that to get to nothing, you have to remove everything. But if nothing is defined as an infinite, unbounded homogeneous state, you don't have to remove anything to get to it--­you just have to put everything into a specific configuration. Think about it this way. You take a blender to the world--­you blend up every object, every chair and table and fortune cookie in this place, you blend it all until everything is just atoms and then you keep blending the atoms until any remaining structure is gone, until everything in the universe looks exactly the same, and this completely undifferentiated stuff is spread out infinitely without bound. Everything will have disappeared into sameness. Everything becomes nothing. But in some sense it's still everything, because everything you started with is still in there. Nothing is just everything in a different configuration." "Okay, that's pretty cool," I said. "Something and nothing aren't really opposites, they're just different patterns of the same thing." "Exactly!" My father beamed. "And if that's true, then it seems much more plausible that you can get something from nothing. Because, in a way, the something is always there. It's like if you build a sandcastle at the beach and then knock it down--­where does the castle go? The castle's 'thingness' was defined by its form, by the boundaries that differentiated it from the rest of the beach. When you knock it down, the castle disappears back into the homogeneity of the beach. The castle and the beach, the something and the nothing, are just two different patterns." The idea was beginning to click. In my existentialist musings I had thought a bit about nothing--­not the transcendent, oneness brand of nothing that my father was drawn to but the Heideggerian variety, laced with indifference and dread. A nothing that was an absence, not only of stuff but of meaning, a vast and impenetrable darkness, like the void I'd find behind my eyelids at night. It was a concept that easily gave way to vertigo, a word that was a paradox by its mere existence. By its name it was a thing, yet it was no thing, and somehow it was the very thing that defined the world. Inasmuch as anything existed, it existed in opposition to nothing, but nothing was a noun doomed to self-­destruct, an idea that came complete with its own negation, poised as the limit not only of reality but of knowledge and of language. Heidegger said that the question "what is nothing?" was the most fundamental of all philosophical questions, and yet "no one," wrote Henning Genz, "has ever given us an answer to what exactly defines nothing, other than by characterizing it simply by negatives." Only that's exactly what my father was trying to do. To define nothing not in terms of what it isn't, but in terms of what it is. A state of infinite, unbounded homogeneity. "I like it," I told him. He smiled. And then this happened. My father looked at me--­his fifteen-­year-­old daughter--­and in all seriousness asked, "Do you think that could explain how the universe began?" I opened my mouth to speak, then paused, mouth open, searching for the right words, any words, to convey my mounting concern for his sanity. Had he gotten into the pot I had hidden under my mattress? "You're asking me how the universe began?" "Well, before the universe there was nothing. So to get a universe, nothing has to become something. For years I've been thinking they must be two different states of the same underlying thing--­the same underlying reality--­otherwise there'd be no way to transform one into the other. But how could nothing be a state of anything? Only now I realize that it's a state of infinite, unbounded homogeneity. If you start from that, the problem of the origin of the universe becomes thinkable, at least. Tractable, maybe." I had been on board when I thought we were playing a philosophical game of semantic Jenga, but now he was bringing the universe into it? "Isn't this, like, physics?" I asked. He nodded. "I'm not even taking physics. I opted out of physics and took meteorology with the other underachievers. And I can't even tell you how a hurricane begins because I slept through the class." He motioned to the waitress for the check. "Well, I think we should figure it out." We should figure it out. It wasn't the kind of thing a parent says to a child. It was the kind of thing a person says to another person. I was intrigued. The whole thing sounded crazy, but crazy was infinitely better than boring. Besides, if there was one thing I knew, it was that my father was brilliant. Everyone knew my father was brilliant. He played it down with his sweet exterior and goofy sense of humor. You'd be forgiven for not seeing his brilliance right away, since he was always making wrong turns, zoning out midsentence, or, according to family legend, forgetting his pants. But just past that polite, absentminded demeanor was a bold, creative, insightful mind, and people who spoke to him for even a few minutes walked away knowing they had encountered something extraordinary. If you had to choose one guy to lead you off a cliff with his crazy idea, my father was that guy. For the first time in what felt like years, I smiled. Excerpted from Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn: A Father, a Daughter, the Meaning of Nothing, and the Beginning of Everything by Amanda Gefter All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.