I found the book interesting, but I'm kind of an odd duck. It focuses mostly on physicists in the 60's and 70's who took to heart the implications of Quantum Mechanics and particularly, Bell's Theorem about Quantum Entanglement and posited that this theory opened the door to many psi types of experiences. Remember that this is also when our own government CIA and military were also focusing on the paranormal (and drugs) as tools. Of all the people and things covered in the book, I found the most interesting the exploration of Bell's Theorem into the area of non-local quantum entanglement and it's possible ability to open the door for super-luminal (faster than light) communication. What Star Trek called sub-space communication. If you have an interest, you might enjoy this book. It explores a by-gone era and gives a look at the co-mingling of physics with Transcendental Meditation, EST, ESP. telekinesis, out of body experiences and hallucinogenic drugs. ( )

kind of a slog in parts, but i'm glad i read it. anyone who tells you that STEM is the guaranteed path to a house-car-kids middle-class future is reacting to a very limited historical reality. & hooray for the haircuts in the pictures. ( )

A motley crew of physicists organize meetings, circulate by mail papers they have written proposing far-fetched experimental outcomes, and dabble in New Age hokum. The title is hyperbolic: even in Kaiser’s telling, the real philosophical and scientific breakthroughs arose not from the work of the Fundamental Fysiks Group in Berkeley but from their antecedents (through the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Bell’s Theorem, primarily) and from those who took the time to rebut the ‘hippies.' Still an interesting read, though.

Harpoon Oktoberfest
Tröegs Perpetual IPA

David Kaiser brings a whole new perspective to the concept of history of science in his book “How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival” (or maybe we should call it journalism of science, because almost all of the heroes of this wonderful book are alive). One of the central themes of the book revolves around the classical question of “what is the line between science and pseudoscience?” and others such as “do people move between categories, and if they do, does that lead to any scientifically valuable results?”.

For the reader who thinks science ‘progresses’ (whatever that progress means) in a linear, stepwise manner, the book is definitely full of surprises: expect the unexpected from a turbulent period of intellectual history throughout 60s and 70s, reaching to 90s and well to the 21st century. You will meet heroes such as Feynman (in very interesting settings), as well as the names probably you haven’t heard before, and you will learn that inspirations for scientific ideas can come from very unexpected domains.

Another important point of the book is the fact that science, physics in this case, is a very humane activity, and a very institutionalized one at that! The book strikingly shows that even the strong names such as John Stewart Bell (now famous for Bell’s theorem) was very careful in aligning himself with the established physics institution and securing a permanent position, therefore being forced to the economic realities of science. Having said that, he is not the only example of scientists struggling for freedom and having a hard time being constrained by the socioeconomic environment they are embedded in.

All in all Kaiser’s work is a very solid and lively piece of science writing, weaving a lot of layers seamlessly and resulting in a page turner, which is not an adjective that can be easily attached to a history of science book.

I recommend this book not only to the casual, curious reader of history of science, but very much to the modern ‘managers’ of science, as well as the potential benefactors: The creative human mind craves for the challenges posed by the fundamental questions of nature, and unless you are ready to support the most crazy ideas (coming from not so run-of-the-mill scientists) and entertain contradictory points of view, aiming at discovery in the long run, then what you will get is the unexciting little progress that is the characteristic of many human institutions, leaving no room for real experimenting and high risk taking. Now go and decide what and whom you’ll fund for the next very long 4-year research project, but beware, you’ve been warned. ( )

Even I who chose to skip Physics in high school could understand some of this! Basically a group of non-conformists approached seemingly unanswerable questions from multiple unconventional ways - a testament to the importance of creativity and the ability to keep asking and questioning authority. ( )