Werner Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” challenged centuries of scientific understanding, placed him in direct opposition to Albert Einstein, and put Niels Bohr in the middle of one of the most heated debates in scientific history. Heisenberg’s theorem stated that there were physical limits to what we could know about sub-atomic particles; this “uncertainty” would have shocking implications. In a riveting account, David Lindley captures this critical episode and explains one of the most important scientific discoveries in history, which has since transcended the boundaries of science and influenced everything from literary theory to television.

David Lindley's 2008 256-page paperback "Uncertainty" presents the modern "struggle for the soul of science". This is an informative read explaining the origins for postmodern science's withdrawal from quantum theory.

Lindley here brings to the table a historical analysis of nuclear physics and atomic physics. He reviews the principal players in this drama (Brown, Darwin, the Curies, Plank, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and many more). The book considers Brownian movement, Einsteinian relativity, Rutherford's atomic theory, Sommerfeld's fourth quantum number, Heisenberg's half quantum number, and many more physics discoveries through the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

With an eye to making this history more informative, and perhaps technical science more applicable, Lindley includes many interesting anecdotes. Biographical sketches tell the history. Many 19th century scientists were churchmen because of the vigorous clergy educational requirements (page 16). Einstein began his career as a patent office clerk (page 27). The vacationing Bohr brothers barely escaped Germany, as it closed borders behind them, half an hour after the Kaiser's declaring war on Russia (page 57). Pauli was an undergraduate amidst 1919 Germany's red and white terrors (page 71). Lindley shows scientists' political leanings, religious attitudes, personal biases, and likes and dislikes for one another.

Lindley's presentation here seemingly suggests contemporary science's emergent exit from quantum mechanics. From its earliest days quantum has remained confusing and unpredictable (Einstein was among the first to question its uncertain nature). Today's science continues to look for alternatives to quantum that are more sure and true.

Although this small book is somewhat technical, Lindley adeptly works to put all theories and scientific language into lay language. Even the most scientifically inept will find this book readable and interesting. The book is authoritative and well researched with 17 pages of endnotes. It is recommended to everyone in the sciences and humanities.

An excellent review of the panoply of human life: its genius; its foibles. Anyone who imagines scientists are some sort of sacred band, far, far above us, the humble 'serfs' of the planet will see in this book that even the most celebrated, most intelligent scientist has feet of clay. (Or at least a toe or two are of clay.)

At another level, the author brings us into the disturbing world of sub-atomic phenomena while exploring the mysteries of the broad universe. Having an extensive background in science is not needed to learn much of our strange world and the equally strange personalities involved in the endless struggle to understand.

Highly recommended to any one able to read English and comprehend the story, which is anyone with the curiosity to explore. For me, it was a quick, enjoyable, enlightening read.

More entertaining than scientific, maybe that's the way it must be to garner a wide readership, but I would have liked more physics. Still, I have to admit this is the first book I remember reading twice in a row, with a short side trip to my modern physics textbook (confession: I have a degree in engineering and applied physics)inbetween. The author pretty much ignores Max Planck's contributions, mentioning them in context again & again without ever telling us what he did to begin with. But, don't mistake here - this is a very much worthwhile read.

Lindlye introduce us in the very central point of Physics, the large and controversial discovering of the duality of matter. Amusement and interesting, he made simple the very difficult questions of understanding.

Richard Feynman once remarked, perhaps apocryphally, that if anyone told you they `understood' quantum theory, that the one thing you could depend on is that they had missed something. That is why I find it interesting that many of the `so-so' or negative reviews of this book focus on the issue that it does not impart an `understanding' of quantum theory or mechanics. The entire point of the book is the debate between `determinism,' the idea that everything is knowable (understandable), and `uncertainty,' the idea that nothing can be `known' in the ultimate sense as everything exists only as a probability.

So, in the limited sense, this book will not allow you to `understand' quantum mechanics; if you are a careful reader you will see that `understanding' in the common sense is impossible if you accept uncertainty.

In the past few years there have been many books about particle physics, string theory, cosmology, and such which are more or less dependent on the idea that at the heart of the matter uncertainty rules the function of physics on both the large and the small scale. Rutherford once asked Bohr what `caused' the electron to shift from one state to another; Bohr spent most of the rest of his life trying to explain that the question was irrelevant; nothing `causes' the shift; it is a probability function. At the larger scale Edward Tryon said "our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time."

I really admire this book because it does focus on the personalities of the big players in this debate, something other reviewers have criticized. But unless you understand the background of these giants of science you will not understand why some of them resisted the idea of indeterminism even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

But the debate continues with some popular writers, Dinesh D'Souza, `What's So Great About Christianity?,' for example, who wish to maintain that all scientists accept a deterministic model of the Universe and that this constitutes a sort of `religious faith' in causality. The fact is that most scientists ignore the issue as it has little to do with day to day science. But if you are at all interested in what the debate means in so far as particle physics and cosmology is concerned, this book is an excellent primer on the topic. Because the book does not present a comprehensive, non-mathematical, explanation for quantum mechanics should not be seen as a fault, it's `simply one of those things.'