Notes

The page numbers for the notes that appear in the print version of this title are not in your e-book. Please use the search function on your e-reading device to search for the relevant passages documented or discussed.

INTRODUCTION: EINSTEIN’S CASTLE IN THE AIR

“no previous discovery”: Kafatos and Nadeau, The Conscious Universe: Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory, 1.

dating to the seventeenth century: locality, n., (1) The fact or quality of having a place, that is, of having position in space. 1628 Bp. J. Hall Olde Relig. vii. iii. 69 ‘It destroyes the truth of Christs humane bodie, in that it ascribes quantitie to it, without extension, without localitie.’” Oxford English Dictionary Online, accessed November 30, 2012, www.oed.com.

famous essay in 1936: Einstein, “Physics and Reality.”

“expect a chaotic world”: Einstein, Letters to Solovine: 1906–1955, 117.

mean different things: Earman, “Locality, Nonlocality, and Action at a Distance: A Skeptical Review of Some Philosophical Dogmas.”

it had two aspects: Howard, “Einstein on Locality and Separability.”

“a clean separation”: Ibid., 187–88.

the world without space: Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 50.

he was consistently ahead: Fine, The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, 16–25.

Atoms in your body: Smolin, Life of the Cosmos, 252.

“spooky actions at a distance”: Born and Einstein, The Born-Einstein Letters 1916–1955: Friendship, Politics and Physics in Uncertain Times, 155.

sought a deeper theory: Belousek, “Einstein’s 1927 Unpublished Hidden-Variable Theory: Its Background, Context and Significance.”

“castle in the air”: Stachel, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z,’ 151.

endow you with psychic powers: Collins and Pinch, Frames of Meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary Science, chap. 4; Kaiser, How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival, chaps. 4, 10.

not what we once thought: Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, 123.

space and time are doomed: Gross, “Einstein and the Search for Unification,” 2039.

“single most astonishing discovery”: Tim Maudlin, e-mail to author, October 17, 2012.

“deeper, and more mysterious”: Maudlin, “Part and Whole in Quantum Mechanics,” 60.

“What makes physics possible”: William Unruh, interview by author, November 15, 2010, Utrecht, Netherlands.

1. THE MANY VARIETIES OF NONLOCALITY

“playing with Erector sets”: Enrique Galvez, e-mail to author, July 4, 2012.

mad-scientist contraptions: Gilder, The Age of Entanglement, chaps. 30–31.

Apparently, clothes washers: Markus Baden, interview by author, November 15, 2011, Singapore.

“more fun than something exploding”: Galvez, telephone interview by author, May 31, 2012.used entanglement to teleport: Bouwmeester et al., “Experimental Quantum Teleportation.”

“just for the fun of it”: Galvez, telephone interview by author.

sweated over it for two years: Holbrow, Galvez, and Parks, “Photon Quantum Mechanics and Beam Splitters.”

entangle particles in their basements: Galvez, Correlated-Photon Experiments for Undergraduate Labs; Prutchi and Prutchi, Exploring Quantum Physics Through Hands-On Projects; Musser, “How to Build Your Own Quantum Entanglement Experiment, Part 2 (of 2).”

“getting out to the masses”: David Van Baak, interview by author, March 17, 2011, Dresden, Germany.

in terms of metaphor: Lightman, “Magic on the Mind: Physicists’ Use of Metaphor.”

into two red beams: Nikogosyan, “Beta Barium Borate (BBO).”

“You would be surprised”: Galvez, e-mail to author, October 8, 2012.

stretched the distance: Ursin et al., “Entanglement-Based Quantum Communication Over 144 Km.”

space-based version: Morong, Ling, and Oi, “Quantum Optics for Space Platforms.”

close to real magic: Mermin, “Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks? Reality and the Quantum Theory,” 47.

“Students love it”: Galvez, interview by author, August 5, 2011, Hamilton, NY.

article on the early entanglement experiments: d’Espagnat, “The Quantum Theory and Reality.”

“My roommates remember”: Maudlin, interview by author, January 19, 2011, Princeton, NJ.

“he shut down the question”: Maudlin, e-mail to author, October 17, 2012.

championing or contesting: Beller and Fine, “Bohr’s Response to EPR,” 23–27; Howard, “Revisiting the Einstein-Bohr Dialogue,” 59, 81–82.

“fame would be undiminished”: Pais, Einstein Lived Here, 43.

deemed them “philosophical”: Kaiser, How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival, chap. 1.

“satisfying description of nature”: Dirac, “The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature,” 48.

“get to the bottom”: Maudlin, interview by author.

airing his misgivings: Whitaker, “John Bell in Belfast: Early Years and Education,” 14–17.

was not cited: Kaiser, How the Hippies Saved Physics, 319n41.

One of his obituaries: Gribbin, “The Man Who Proved Einstein Was Wrong”; Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 150.

“an apparent incompatibility”: Ibid., 172.

“peaceful coexistence”: Shimony, “Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,” 388.

“no fundamental conflict”: Maudlin, e-mail to author, October 18, 2012.

not even the sneakiest government surveillance program: Ekert, “Quantum Cryptography Based on Bell’s Theorem.”

In photosynthesis, entanglement: Vedral, “High-Temperature Macroscopic Entanglement”; Sarovar et al., “Quantum Entanglement in Photosynthetic Light-Harvesting Complexes.”

one of the most widely cited articles: Redner, “Citation Statistics from More Than a Century of Physical Review.”

“between philosophy and physics”: Anton Zeilinger, interview by author, April 1, 2011, New York.

“energy falling in”: Ramesh Narayan, telephone interview by author, July 19, 2012.

cauldron of swirling gas: Goss and McGee, “The Discovery of the Radio Source Sagittarius A (Sgr A).”

region is puzzlingly dim: Broderick, Loeb, and Narayan, “The Event Horizon of Sagittarius A*.”

“and vanishing—poof”: Narayan, telephone interview by author.

“black hole has no surface”: Ibid.

Climbing magazine: Johnson, “A Passion for Physical Realms, Minute and Massive.”

“intimately relating to nature”: Steven B. Giddings, e-mail to author, October 27, 2012.

“a big grizzly bear”: Giddings, interview by author, May 9, 2012. Bits, Branes, Black Holes, Santa Barbara, CA.

“students felt very intimidated”: Ibid.

just those strings vibrating: Musser, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to String Theory.

“swept up in the waves”: Giddings, interview by author, May 9, 2012.

“maybe this could work”: Ibid.

“decay to random junk”: Giddings, e-mail to author, March 30, 2007.

all is lost: Hawking, “Black Holes and Thermodynamics.”

search for escape hatches: Callan et al., “Evanescent Black Holes.”

“Hawking’s original picture”: Giddings, interview by author, May 9, 2012.

we should see parallel failings: Banks, Susskind, and Peskin, “Difficulties for the Evolution of Pure States into Mixed States.”

must be reversible: Hawking, “Information Loss in Black Holes.”

“continuing to beat my head”: Giddings, interview by author, May 14, 2012. Bits, Branes, Black Holes, Santa Barbara, CA.

much the same conclusion: Lowe et al., “Black Hole Complementarity Versus Locality.”

“I didn’t pursue it”: Giddings, interview by author, May 9, 2012.

that gets people’s attention: Sivers, “How to Start a Movement.”

the Hubble Deep Field: Macchetto and Dickinson, “Galaxies in the Young Universe.”

just one photon of their light per minute: Mario Livio, e-mail to author, November 13, 2012.

first realized in 1969: Misner, “Mixmaster Universe.”

standard textbook of gravity: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Gravitation.

spilling acids on various textiles: Lightman and Brawer, Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists, 233.

“The labs were awful”: Charles W. Misner, telephone interview by author, July 5, 2012.

“a geometrical and physical intuition”: Ibid.

stretching light waves: Schmidt, “3C 273: A Star-Like Object with Large Red-Shift.”

the hiss persisted: Wilson, “The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation,” 475.

13.8 billion years old: Planck Collaboration, “Planck 2013 Results. XVI. Cosmological Parameters.”

breathtakingly unlikely: Carroll, “In What Sense Is the Early Universe Fine-Tuned?”

“sky is not extremely mottled”: Misner, telephone interview by author.

Russian theorist Yakov Zel’dovich: Zel’dovich, “Particle Production in Cosmology.”

“at those extreme times”: Misner, telephone interview by author.

a way to solve the horizon problem: Guth and Steinhardt, “The Inflationary Universe.”

galaxies are not actually moving through space: Davis and Lineweaver, “Expanding Confusion: Common Misconceptions of Cosmological Horizons and the Superluminal Expansion of the Universe,” 5–6.

“a relative velocity”: Misner, telephone interview by author.

telltale patterns of inflation: Ade et al., “BICEP2 I: Detection of B-Mode Polarization at Degree Angular Scales.”

the finding fizzled: Planck Collaboration, “Planck Intermediate Results. XXX. The Angular Power Spectrum of Polarized Dust Emission at Intermediate and High Galactic Latitudes.”

preternaturally uniform: Vachaspati and Trodden, “Causality and Cosmic Inflation”; Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, 755–57; Steinhardt, “The Inflation Debate.”

shared first place: Kaplan, “Winners of the Young Researchers Competition in Physics Announced.”

“an interesting interplay”: Fotini Markopoulou, telephone interview by author, November 23, 2012.

“like a planetarium”: Ibid.

“where Einstein left off”: Ibid.

“It’s a funny thing”: Markopoulou, interview by author, June 4, 2011, New York.

“the quantum-gravity people”: Markopoulou, telephone interview by author.

Markopoulou made her name: Markopoulou and Smolin, “Causal Evolution of Spin Networks”; Markopoulou and Smolin, “Disordered Locality in Loop Quantum Gravity States.”

“I had this gut feeling”: Markopoulou, telephone interview by author.

Several string theorists: Easther et al., “Constraining Holographic Inflation with WMAP.”

“staring us in the face”: Markopoulou, e-mail to author, May 17, 2012.

most basic function: Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, 122.

sheer number of data cables: Perkins and Malyukov, “Cables: The ‘Blood Vessels’ of ATLAS.”

1,800 miles: Musser, “How to Build the World’s Simplest Particle Detector.”

“these Feynman calculations”: Zvi Bern, e-mail to author, May 16, 2012.

220 different ways: Mangano and Parke, “Multi-Parton Amplitudes in Gauge Theories,” 304.

reduce to a mere four: Ibid., 326.

“My epiphany about science”: Bern, interview by author, April 24, 2012, Los Angeles.

jump straight to the final four: Bern et al., “Fusing Gauge Theory Tree Amplitudes into Loop Amplitudes.”

criticized the ayatollahs: Nima Arkani-Hamed, interview by author, February 23, 2011, Princeton, NJ.

“at a blistering pace”: Arkani-Hamed, e-mail to author, January 8, 2010.

a comprehensive alternative: Arkani-Hamed and Trnka, “The Amplituhedron.”

the trouble with Feynman diagrams: Arkani-Hamed, Cachazo, and Kaplan, “What Is the Simplest Quantum Field Theory?”

drawn to Feynman’s approach: Kaiser, Drawing Theories Apart: The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar Physics, 368–73.

“You then suffer”: Arkani-Hamed, telephone interview by author, February 5, 2010.

Particles still obey: Arkani-Hamed et al., “Local Spacetime Physics from the Grassmannian.”

but it fomented revolution: Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, chap. 5.

“When you’re a kid”: Arkani-Hamed, interview by author, July 11, 2011, Princeton, NJ.

parts of the same elephant: Heller, “Where Physics Meets Metaphysics,” 261.

“what entanglement means”: Arkani-Hamed, interview by author, July 11, 2011.

the glue holding space together: Giddings, “Black Holes, Quantum Information, and Unitary Evolution”; Van Raamsdonk, “Building Up Spacetime with Quantum Entanglement.”

a kind of secret tunnel: Maldacena and Susskind, “Cool Horizons for Entangled Black Holes.”

2. THE ORIGINS OF NONLOCALITY

“end of the rationality”: Popper, “Bell’s Theorem: A Note on Locality,” 417.

“incompatible with the very possibility”: Bohm and Hiley, The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory, 157.

“flapdoodle”: Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex, 172.

the unity in diversity: Salmon, Causality and Explanation, 69–71, 76–78, 85–90.

parallels to the dismay: McMullin, “The Explanation of Distant Action: Historical Notes,” 272.

“a lump of brute matter”: Frans H. van Lunteren, e-mail to author, August 20, 2012.

“used to missing the point”: van Lunteren, e-mail to author, August 19, 2012.

“start with a differential equation”: van Lunteren, e-mail to author, August 18, 2012.

“into the old darkness”: Hesse, Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics, 157.

“hard to swallow”: van Lunteren, e-mail to author, August 18.

scholars did their utmost: van Lunteren, “Framing Hypotheses: Conceptions of Gravity in the 18th and 19th Centuries.”

recoiled … embraced: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 166, 187; Jammer, Concepts of Force, 145–46.

twists and turns began: Cushing, Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony, 18.

Plato tells the story: Taylor, “Parmenides, Zeno, and Socrates.”

what drove a person: Salmon, Causality, 6–7.

Poseidon was peeved: Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 83.

explanations make little distinction: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 34–35.

What rules governed: Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 1, The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans, 37–45.

floating on a subterranean ocean: Lloyd, Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle, 9.

He wasn’t so sure: Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 2, The Presocratic Tradition from Parmenides to Democritus, 31–33; Lloyd, Early Greek Science, 36–39.

nine such paradoxes: Huggett, “Zeno’s Paradoxes.”

“the most self-evident thing”: Simplicius, On Aristotle’s Physics 6, 114.

has no innate scale: Riemann, “On the Hypotheses Which Lie at the Bases of Geometry”; Grünbaum, Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes, chap. 3.

“One reading of”: Fay Dowker, interview by author, April 4, 2012. Bits, Branes, Black Holes, Santa Barbara, CA.

“one tiny piece of space/time”: Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, 57.

discrete building blocks: Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 2, 389–92, 455–56; Leucippus and Democritus, The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus, 73–74, 164–71.

sensations we enjoy: Ibid., 119, 208–209.

the atomists’ creation: Cornford, “The Invention of Space”; Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 1, 279; Casey, The Fate of Place, 79–84.

“no place or space”: Lucretius, The Nature of Things, 15.

innumerable variety of worlds: Guthrie, History, vol. 2, 404–407.

space separates atoms: Leucippus and Democritus, The Atomists, 184–88.

by making direct contact: Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 2, 418–19, 498; Leucippus and Democritus, The Atomists 73, 74, 88.

hardly a phenomenon: Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 2, 388; Leucippus and Democritus, The Atomists, 159, 195.

that analogy came centuries later: Berryman, The Mechanical Hypothesis in Ancient Greek Natural Philosophy, 33–39.

Individual atoms are lifeless: Dijksterhuis, The Mechanization of the World Picture: Pythagoras to Newton, 11–12, 495–98.

void of purpose and meaning: Ibid., 77–78.

to burn his books: Leucippus and Democritus, The Atomists, 56–57.

Pulitzer Prize–winning: Greenblatt, “The Answer Man.”

“rid of harsh taskmasters”: Lucretius, The Nature of Things, 68.

world throbs with life: Kearney, Science and Change, 1500–1700, 23–24, 26–33.

a sophisticated theory: Newstead, “Aristotle and Modern Mathematical Theories of the Continuum.”

the arrangement of atoms: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 62.

Aristotle abhorred a void: Aristotle, Physics, book 4, parts 7–9.

in relation to its neighbors: Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion? The Discovery of Dynamics, 84–91.

passes the impulse: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 79–80.

Aristotle’s contemporaries in China: Needham and Wang, Science and Civilisation in China, vol. 4, part 1, 6–8.

Aristotle’s way of thinking: Lloyd, Early Greek Science, 103–9; Rovelli, “Aristotle’s Physics: A Physicist’s Look.”

corroborate or disprove: Lloyd, Early Greek Science, 139–42.

making the universe comprehensible: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 72.

purely by contact: Ibid., 67–73.

“bodily change of place”: Aristotle, Physics, book 7, part 1, 242b59.

Aristotle took pains: Jammer, Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics, 17–22.

“a goat-stag or a sphinx”: Aristotle, Physics, book 4, part 1, 208a27.

many strange rocks: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 57–58.

known as Magnesia: Melfos, Helly, and Voudouris, “The Ancient Greek Names ‘Magnesia’ and ‘Magnetes’ and Their Origin from the Magnetite Occurrences at the Mavrovouni Mountain of Thessaly, Central Greece. A Mineralogical–Geochemical Approach.”

Thales also marveled at amber: Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 1, 66.

Greek word for amber: Gilbert, On the Magnet, 46–47.

Chinese scholars discovered: Needham and Wang, Science and Civilisation in China, vol. 4, part 1, 230, 232.

vapors that displaced the air: Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 2, 426.

ignoring it: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 57.

rotating crystalline spheres: Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, 79–80; Jammer, Concepts of Force, 41–42.

swept toward the middle: Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 2, 400–413; Leucippus and Democritus, The Atomists, 94–95, 179–84.

“nothing is distant”: Saint Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas, book 1, query 8, article 1, reply to objection 3.

The more scholars mulled: Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, 101–104, 115–17.

a lodestone attracts: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 87–90.

an act of “coition”: Gilbert, On the Magnet, 1, 208.

evidence for atoms: Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, 89–90, 231–37.

“all the phenomena of nature”: Descartes, The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. 3, The Correspondence, 7.

as comprehensive as Aristotle’s: Dijksterhuis, The Mechanization of the World Picture, 408.

served as the manifesto: Kearney, Science and Change, 151–60.

continuities are clear: Dijksterhuis, The Mechanization of the World Picture, 417; Garber, Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics, 119.

purely geometric figure: Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, 40–41.

freely in straight lines: Suppes, “Descartes and the Problem of Action at a Distance,” 149–50.

“require no proof”: Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, 69.

inspired modern theories: Westfall, The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics, 34–36.

tiny screws or hooks: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 106–107.

alchemy lab in a garden shed: Westfall, “Newton and Alchemy,” 318–19.

Feynman had been fascinated: Feynman, “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”: Adventures of a Curious Character, 332–36.

a product of magic: Kearney, Science and Change, 22–25, 48; Westfall, “Newton and the Hermetic Tradition,” 195; Henry, The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science, 55.

not enough heart: Goodrick-Clarke, The Western Esoteric Traditions: A Historical Introduction, chap. 1.

the oneness of nature: Stamatellos, Plotinus and the Presocratics: A Philosophical Study of Presocratic Influences in Plotinus’ Enneads, 26–29, 150–54.

They remain influential: Hanegraaff, “The New Age Movement and the Esoteric Tradition.”

charms and potions: Copenhaver, “Natural Magic, Hermetism, and Occultism in Early Modern Science,” 270–81; Hesse, Forces and Fields, 31–32; Goodrick-Clarke, The Western Esoteric Traditions, 8, 56.

“their causes lie hid”: Agrippa von Nettesheim, Three Books of Occult Philosophy, 32.

chocolate frog trading card: Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, 102.

an essential part: Sack, “Magic and Space.”

sympathies and antipathies: Jammer, Concepts of Force, 42–47.

“like produces like”: Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion; Part 1: The Magic Art and and the Evolution of Kings, vol. 1, 52.

alchemy, astrology, and numerology: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 74–77, 93–97.

Western culture has seesawed: Brush, “The Chimerical Cat: Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective,” 403–10.

traces of it in the Bohr-Einstein debates: Forman, “Weimar Culture, Causality, and Quantum Theory, 1918–1927: Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment,” 111–12; Brush, “The Chimerical Cat,” 410–18.

Agrippa latched on to them: Kearney, Science and Change, 40–41.

To probe its mysteries: Henry, The Scientific Revolution, chap. 4.

to manipulate nature: Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, 155–56.

Pico della Mirandola: Goodrick-Clarke, The Western Esoteric Traditions, 45.

For that noble sentiment: Yates, Giordano Bruno, 112.

Hamlet soliloquy: Caldiero, “The Source of Hamlet’s ‘What a Piece of Work Is a Man!’”

green lizard urine: Agrippa von Nettesheim, Three Books of Occult Philosophy, 150.

laying the foundations: Kearney, Science and Change, 116–18, 130–32.

“The aim of magic”: Rossi, Francis Bacon: From Magic to Science, 22.

magical notion of sympathies: Jammer, Concepts of Force, 72.

crises of self-doubt: Koestler, The Watershed: A Biography of Johannes Kepler, 123–24.

“here I blundered”: Ibid., 62.

his mystical inspiration: Kearney, Science and Change, 138.

Kepler cast horoscopes: Koestler, The Watershed, 39–42.

if the moon were watery: Kepler, New Astronomy, 56–57; McMullin, “The Origins of the Field Concept in Physics,” 18–19.

fine-tune planet orbits: Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, 246.

purists were unsympathetic: McMullin, “Origins of the Field Concept,” 20.

“the moon’s dominion”: Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican, 462.

fringes of mainstream philosophy: Koestler, The Watershed, 163–65.

“the great amphibian”: Kearney, Science and Change, 196.

as flaming atheists: Henry, “Occult Qualities and the Experimental Philosophy: Active Principles in Pre-Newtonian Matter Theory,” 352–53.

alchemy, Neoplatonism, and Kabbalah: Ibid., 352–53, 357–58; Westfall, The Life of Isaac Newton, 117–19.

bore witness: Dobbs, “Newton’s Alchemy and His Theory of Matter,” 526–27.

“intellectually sleep around”: Albion Lawrence, interview by author, April 12, 2012. Bits, Branes, Black Holes, Santa Barbara, CA.

knew perfectly well: Kearney, Science and Change, 194–96.

congratulating him: Newton, Isaac Newton: Philosophical Writings, 106–107.

fifteen thousand letters: Leibniz, Philosophical Papers and Letters, vol. 1, 549n21.

“how extraordinarily distracted”: Mates, Philosophy of Leibniz, 27.

five rounds of letters: Westfall, Life of Isaac Newton, 294; Leibniz, Philosophical Papers and Letters, vol. 2, 675.

what would qualify as a satisfying resolution: Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 109.

a mechanical explanation: Mischel, “Pragmatic Aspects of Explanation.”

unexplainable: Hutchison, “What Happened to Occult Qualities in the Scientific Revolution?,” 253.

“a chimerical thing”: Leibniz, Philosophical Papers and Letters, vol. 2, 716.

“I frame no hypotheses”: Newton, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, vol. 1, 314.

that’s good enough: Henry, “Occult Qualities and the Experimental Philosophy,” 358–59, 362–63.

two separate functions: Janiak, Newton as Philosopher, 15–25, 53–65.

a compelling picture: Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective, 10–11.

An insistence on explanation: Hutchison, “What Happened to Occult Qualities in the Scientific Revolution?,” 251.

“restrain the intemperate desire”: Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, book 1, Of the Understanding, 13.

known as instrumentalism: Popper, “Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge.”

reassure their colleagues: Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, 229–30; Beller, Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution, 176–77.

the creative spark of science: Lightman, “Magic on the Mind.”

no sharp boundary: Lange, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics: Locality, Fields, Energy, and Mass, 249–50.

three broad categories: Newton, Mathematical Principles, vol. 1, 174; Hesse, Forces and Fields, 148–53; McMullin, “The Explanation of Distant Action,” 293–301.

particles impart a force: Newton, Mathematical Principles, vol. 2, 313.

violent religious fanatics: van Lunteren, “Nicolas Fatio de Duillier on the Mechanical Cause of Universal Gravitation.”

“immaterial”: Newton, Philosophical Writings, 102.

“incorporeal”: Newton, Mathematical Principles, vol. 1, 174.

“intangible”: Leibniz, Philosophical Papers and Letters: A Selection, vol. 2, 696.

penetrate the interior of planets: Janiak, Newton as Philosopher, 76–79; Kochiras, “Gravity and Newton’s Substance Counting Problem.”

inspired the concept: Gale, “Leibniz and Some Aspects of Field Dynamics”; Friedman, Introduction to Kant’s Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, ix–x.

God’s omnipresence: Newton, Philosophical Writings, 22, 25–27.

God already exists: Kochiras, “Gravity and Newton’s Substance Counting Problem,” 270–72; Janiak, Newton as Philosopher, 37–40.

monads gave rise: Gale, “Leibniz and Some Aspects of Field Dynamics,” 39–40; Slowik, “The ‘Properties’ of Leibnizian Space: Whither Relationism?,” 123–24, 128–29.

Neither man thought: Newton, Philosophical Writings, 21–22; Leibniz, Leibniz: New Essays on Human Understanding, book 2, chap. 13, paragraph 17.

helped Newton revise: Janiak, Newton as Philosopher, 90–94, 168–72.

referring to atheism: Newton, Philosophical Writings, 102; Henry, “‘Pray Do Not Ascribe That Notion to Me’: God and Newton’s Gravity.”

invoked nonlocal forces: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 153–56, 180–88; Henry, “Gravity and De Gravitatione: The Development of Newton’s Ideas on Action at a Distance,” 20–23.

alienate mechanical purists: Westfall, Life of Isaac Newton, 187–88.

perfectly reasonable: van Lunteren, “Framing Hypotheses,” 68–90; Hesse, Forces and Fields, 155–56, 166, 187.

fluids for magnetism: Williams, The Origins of Field Theory, 17–27; Hesse, Forces and Fields, 182–83.

did a backflip: Ibid., 166.

supposedly simple collision: Jammer, Concepts of Force, 211.

proponents of locality: Leibniz, Philosophical Papers and Letters, vol. 2, 446; Leucippus and Democritus, The Atomists, 84, 186–87, 192–93.

an instant U-turn: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 163–66.

German überphilosopher played: Kuehn, Kant: A Biography, 64.

a continuum of forces: Friedman, “Introduction” pp. xvi–xix; Kant, Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, 34, 50–55; Williams, Origins of Field Theory, 37–43.

never actually come into contact: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 163–66.

reduced local forces: van Lunteren, “Framing Hypotheses,” 126.

“reduce uncommon unintelligibilities”: Mach, History and Root of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy, 55–56.

“gravitation no longer disturbs”: Mach, History and Root of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy, 56.

frogs’ legs twitch: Kipnis, “Luigi Galvani and the Debate on Animal Electricity, 1791–1800,” 114.

a wet piece of cardboard: Ibid., 135.

an amazing new plaything: Berkson, Fields of Force: The Development of a World View from Faraday to Einstein, 30.

rebellion against mechanistic thinking: Williams, Origins of Field Theory, 31, 43.

revivals of magical thinking: Goodrick-Clarke, The Western Esoteric Traditions, 180.

Adherents were fascinated: Safranski and Osers, Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy, 200–201.

nature’s diverse forces: Morus, When Physics Became King, 54–63.

built his first battery: Stauffer, “Speculation and Experiment in the Background of Oersted’s Discovery of Electromagnetism,” 40.

no magnetic effects: Ibid., 43.

a wire connected to a battery: Ibid., 46.

blind to other objects: Berkson, Fields of Force, 21–22.

the swirling motions: Maxwell, The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, vol. 2, 317.

accepted Newton’s atomistic explanation: Cantor, Optics After Newton: Theories of Light in Britain and Ireland, 1704–1840, 29–31, 86–90, 204.

inspiration from the flow: Ibid., 129–30.

among medieval scholastics: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 81.use a laser pointer: Prutchi and Prutchi, Exploring Quantum Physics Through Hands-On Projects, 4–6.

Under the emperor: Morus, When Physics Became King, 23, 26–32.

apt to misinterpret: Cantor, Optics After Newton: Theories of Light in Britain and Ireland, 1704–1840, 142–44.

a bookbinder’s apprentice: Williams, Michael Faraday: A Biography, 8, 14.

borrowed a shilling: Ibid., 15, 22.

their vision of unity: Williams, Origins of Field Theory, 68–69; Morus, When Physics Became King, 91–97.

The word “physicist”: Morus, 6–7, 53.

a rebranding strategy: Ibid.

never learned math: Williams, Origins of Field Theory, 67.

nature is local: Berkson, Fields of Force, 39–49.

the lines of force: Williams, Origins of Field Theory, 76.

ordinary substance made of: Doran, “Origins and Consolidation of Field Theory in Nineteenth-Century Britain: From the Mechanical to the Electromagnetic View of Nature,” 164–65; Hesse, Forces and Fields, 199–200.

an immaterial medium: Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity, vol. 2, 284–93, vol. 3, 447–52; Doran, “Origins and Consolidation of Field Theory,” 166–78.

introduced the term: Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity, vol. 3, 30.

failed to catch on: Williams, Origins of Field Theory, 112–13, 117.

at points in space: Maxwell, Scientific Papers, vol. 1, 160, 205.

could equally well: Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, vol. 1, x.

describe a hypothetical: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 196–98.

disturbances take time: Berkson, Fields of Force, 231–40.

A time lag seems odd: Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity, vol. 3, 409, 412.

an electromagnetic wave: Maxwell, Scientific Papers, vol. 1, 535, 579–80.

essence of real things: Ibid., 564; Lange, Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics, 120–36.

none goes missing: Faraday, Experimental Researches in Chemistry and Physics, 443–63.

“most pernicious heresy”: Tait, Properties of Matter, 6; Lodge, Modern Views of Electricity, 331.

no place in Maxwell’s theory: van Lunteren, “Gravitational and Nineteenth-Century Physical Worldviews.”

gravity always pulls: Maxwell, Scientific Papers, vol. 1, 570–71.

zipped across space: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 195, 225.

single out a certain speed: Lange, Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics, 210–12.

like they’re standing still: Einstein, “Autobiographical Notes,” in Schilpp, Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, 53.

were equally contradictory: Berkson, Fields of Force, 261–67.

like a bear in a cage: de Haas-Lorentz, H. A. Lorentz: Impressions of His Life and Work, 41.

perhaps even of gravity: McCormmach, “H. A. Lorentz and the Electromagnetic View of Nature.”

relative to the apparatus: Berkson, Fields of Force, 274–75, 313–15.

awkward consequences: Einstein, “Physics and Reality,” 364–65; Berkson, Fields of Force, 271; Frisch, “Inconsistency in Classical Electrodynamics.”

as though it were psychic: Dirac, “Classical Theory of Radiating Electrons,” 159–60; Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 786–98.used to send messages: Frisch, “Non-Locality in Classical Electrodynamics,” 4–7.

popping off like firecrackers: Dirac, “Classical Theory of Radiating Electrons,” 149.

an infinite capacity: Rayleigh, “The Dynamical Theory of Gases and of Radiation.”

physicists came to question: Ritz, “Recherches critiques sur l’électrodynamique générale”; Wheeler and Feynman, “Classical Electrodynamics in Terms of Direct Interparticle Action.”

3. EINSTEIN’S LOCALITY

all the fun stuff: Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe, 32–37.

great works of philosophy: Howard, “Albert Einstein as a Philosopher of Science.”

rejected job applications: Isaacson, Einstein, 54–61.

his first scientific papers: McCormmach, “Einstein, Lorentz, and the Electron Theory,” 43–44.

tweaked those equations: Norton, “Einstein’s Investigations of Galilean Covariant Electrodynamics Prior to 1905.”

Einstein’s egalitarian instincts: Zahar, “Why Did Einstein’s Programme Supersede Lorentz’s? (II),” 232–33.

quintessential eureka moment: Abiko, “Einstein’s Kyoto Address: ‘How I Created the Theory of Relativity,’” 14.

addition or subtraction: Newton, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, vol. 1, 21–22.

assumption of instantaneous communication: Ehlers, “The Nature and Structure of Spacetime,” 73–74.

confront their own ignorance: Fernbach et al., “Political Extremism Is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding.”

exchange some kind of signal: Einstein, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” 126–27.

alternative to the Newtonian velocity-addition rule: Einstein and Penrose, Einstein’s Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics, 142.

to countenance nonlocality: McCormmach, “Einstein, Lorentz, and the Electron Theory,” 67.

pointed out some repercussions: Minkowski, “Raum Und Zeit.”

an objective fact: Nozick, Invariances: The Structure of the Objective World, 76–77.

a property of space: Carroll, Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity, 2, 48–50, 178–79.

theory doesn’t forbid: Liberati, Sonego, and Visser, “Faster-Than-C Signals, Special Relativity, and Causality”; Maudlin, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics; Hesse, Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics.

the end of a rainbow: Maudlin, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, 70.

a factor of 10: Lincoln, “Proving Special Relativity: Episode 2.”

Reaching light speed: Einstein, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” 158.

muck up sequences: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 236, 283–88, 305.

as early as 1907: Einstein, “Über die vom Relativitätsprinzip geforderte Trägheit der Energie,” 381–82; Schwartz, “Einstein’s Comprehensive 1907 Essay on Relativity, Part 1,” 516; Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 235–36.

“telegraph into the past”: Langevin, “L’évolution de l’espace et du temps,” 44; Miller, Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905–1911), 223.

creating a causal loop: Mitchell, “The Clock That Went Backward.”

preventing your own birth: Schachner, “Ancestral Voices.”

life imitating art: Gödel, “A Remark About the Relationship Between Relativity Theory and Idealistic Philosophy,” 560–61; Black, “Why Cannot an Effect Precede Its Cause?,” 54–55.

acquainted with anarchy: Borisov and Kudryashov, “Paul Painlevé and His Contribution to Science.”

at infinite velocity: Saari and Xia, “Off to Infinity in Finite Time.”

a space invader: Earman, A Primer on Determinism, 46–47.

allow pulses to ripple: Ibid., 40–42.

your laundry basket: Ibid., 55–61.

“the potential to be garbage”: Giddings, interview by author, October 11, 2010, Santa Barbara, CA.

Even Niels Bohr: Bohr, “Space and Time in Nuclear Physics,” 212, 218.

every point of a field: Einstein, “Quanten-Mechanik Und Wirklichkeit,” 321–22; Howard, “Holism, Separability and the Metaphysical Implications of the Bell Experiments,” 232–40.

it was a supposition: Einstein, “Autobiographical Notes,” 13; Fine, The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, chap. 6.

“conceived in sin”: Arthur Fine, e-mail to author, June 24, 2011.

admitted they didn’t know: Stachel, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z,’ 378–79.

the theory’s father: Stone, “Einstein and the Quantum: The Quest of the Valiant Swabian,” 281–82.

practically the only one: Stuewer, “The Experimental Challenge of Light Quanta,” 146–47.

Einstein settled the issue: Einstein, “On a Heuristic Point of View Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light”; Einstein, “Über die Entwicklung unserer Anschauungen über das Wesen und die Konstitution der Strahlung.”

nonlocality seems unavoidable: Hesse, Forces and Fields, 265.

atoms absorb wave energy in discrete bites: Stuewer, “The Experimental Challenge of Light Quanta,” 147–48.

saw very early on: Bacciagaluppi and Valentini, Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference, 178–81.

the “bubble paradox”: Cramer, “The Quantum Handshake.”

Einstein’s initial instinct: McCormmach, “Einstein, Lorentz, and the Electron Theory,” 56–57.

particles acting independently: Howard, “‘Nicht Sein Kann Was Nicht Sein Darf,’ or the Prehistory of EPR, 1909–1935: Einstein’s Early Worries About the Quantum Mechanics of Composite Systems,” 69–78.

“guiding field”: Ibid., 72–73, 75–76.

Bohr toyed with a version: Howard, “Revisiting the Einstein-Bohr Dialogue,” 67–69.

“ordinary space-time description”: Bohr, The Emergence of Quantum Mechanics (Mainly 1924–1926), vol. 5, 79.

to take a break: Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe, 157.

“a kind of ‘foamy crest’”: Schrödinger, “On Einstein’s Gas Theory.”

a curious mathematical abstraction: Schrödinger, “Quantisation as a Problem of Proper Values (Part IV),” 120.

admitted he didn’t know: Tollaksen et al., “Quantum Interference Experiments, Modular Variables and Weak Measurements,” 5n6.

distant regions of space: Aharonov and Rohrlich, Quantum Paradoxes, 61–75.

two sides to the debate: Beller, Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution, 143, 187–89.

spits out a photon: Einstein, “On the Quantum Theory of Radiation,” 76.

“literally, a miracle”: Earman, “Locality, Nonlocality, and Action at a Distance: A Skeptical Review of Some Philosophical Dogmas,” 475.

traced this cultural mood: Forman, “Weimar Culture, Causality, and Quantum Theory, 1918–1927: Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment,” 111–12; Brush, “The Chimerical Cat: Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective,” 410–18.

God does not throw dice: Born and Einstein, The Born-Einstein Letters 1916–1955: Friendship, Politics and Physics in Uncertain Times, x, 88, 146.

never objected to randomness: von Plato, Creating Modern Probability: Its Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy in Historical Perspective, 114–23.

give up the search: Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, xvii, 7–10.

not half and half: Stachel, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z,’ 410–14.

would entail nonlocality: Howard, “The Shaky Game,” 130–35; Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 143.

this dilemma: Einstein, “Autobiographical Notes,” 682; Redhead, Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism: A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, 76.

Belgian chemicals magnate: Bacciagaluppi and Valentini, Quantum Theory at the Crossroads, 3, 18–19.

twenty-eight dapper men and one elegant woman: Ibid., 257.

orchestrate the collapse: Ibid., 440–42.

“to my mind a contradiction”: Ibid., 441.

name of “realism”: Laudisa, “Non-Local Realistic Theories and the Scope of the Bell Theorem.”

a “hidden variable”: Bohm, “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables, I,” 168.

Einstein had been trying: Belousek, “Einstein’s 1927 Unpublished Hidden-Variable Theory: Its Background, Context and Significance.”

de Broglie presented: Bacciagaluppi and Valentini, Quantum Theory at the Crossroads, 67–76, 341–71.

“Mr. de Broglie is right”: Ibid., 441.

Bohr implicitly accepted: Howard, “Revisiting the Einstein-Bohr Dialogue,” 59; Landsman, “When Champions Meet: Rethinking the Bohr-Einstein Debate,” 233–34.

“some mathematical methods”: Bacciagaluppi and Valentini, Quantum Theory at the Crossroads, 442.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: Bohr, “Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics,” 213–18; Howard, “‘Nicht Sein Kann Was Nicht Sein Darf,’” 93–97.

“like a jack-in-the-box”: Bohr, Foundations of Quantum Physics I (1926–1932), 38.

“so very repugnant”: Einstein, Letter to Paul Epstein (EA 10-583); Howard, “‘Nicht Sein Kann Was Nicht Sein Darf,’” 102.

either nonlocal or incomplete: Howard, “‘Nicht Sein Kann Was Nicht Sein Darf,’” 98–105.

this extra functionality is secondary: Fine, The Shaky Game, 37–38; Maudlin, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, 139–40.

“That which really exists”: Born and Einstein, The Born-Einstein Letters, 162–63.

A predecessor of mine: Musser, “Forces of the World, Unite!”

stayed up half the night: Bohr, “Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics,” 224–28; Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe, 347–49.

never to return: Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe, 405–409.

three letters a day: Gilder, The Age of Entanglement, chap. 16.

coined a name: Schrödinger, “Discussion of Probability Relations Between Separated Systems.”

famous morbid scenario: Trimmer, “The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics: A Translation of Schrödinger’s ‘Cat Paradox’ Paper.”

blamed his coauthors: Einstein, Letter to Erwin Schrödinger (EA 22-47).

attempted a takedown: Howard, “Einstein on Locality and Separability.”

his own version: Einstein, “Physics and Reality,” 376.

came out with a rebuttal: Fine, The Shaky Game, 191–92; Beller, Quantum Dialogue, 153, 277.

“Bohr won the debate”: Milburn, The Feynman Processor: Quantum Entanglement and the Computing Revolution, 47.

the dominant interpretation: Schlosshauer, Kofler, and Zeilinger, “A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics.”

a loner: Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe, 273–75.

Bohr was a father figure: Beller, Quantum Dialogue, 177, 244, 270.

He and his acolytes: Ibid., 10–11.

played down Einstein’s: Klein, “Einstein and the Wave-Particle Duality,” 3–4.

“misunderstanding”: Rosenfeld, “Niels Bohr in the Thirties: Consolidation and Extension of the Conception of Complementarity,” 128.

“intelligent and promising”: Bohr, Foundations of Quantum Physics II (1933–1958), 251.

counterfactual scenarios: Cushing, Quantum Mechanics, chap. 10.

4. THE GREAT DEBATE

“a huge bloody argument”: Maudlin, interview by author.

an intellectual “morass”: Name withheld, interview by author, November 15, 2010, Utrecht, Netherlands.

“high opinion of themselves”: Name withheld, interview by author, December 7, 2011, Singapore.

“like a battering ram”: Name withheld, interview by author, June 7, 2011, New York.

“unassailably appallingly wrong”: Name withheld, e-mail to author, May 15, 2008.

“war of all against all”: Fine, e-mail to author, June 24, 2011.

“code for emotional differences”: Ibid.

Einstein’s original paper: Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”

John Bell’s follow-up: Bell, “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.”

“smothered by the formalism”: Einstein, Letter to Erwin Schrödinger (EA 22–47); Fine, The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, 35.

two distinct steps: Maudlin, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics, 144; Laudisa, “Non-Local Realistic Theories and the Scope of the Bell Theorem,” 1122.

stop the presses: Belousek, “Einstein’s 1927 Unpublished Hidden-Variable Theory: Its Background, Context and Significance.”

created a video: Musser, “George and John’s Excellent Adventures in Quantum Entanglement.”

about 85 percent of the time: Gisin, “Can Relativity Be Considered Complete? From Newtonian Nonlocality to Quantum Nonlocality and Beyond.”

any number of particles: Greenberger et al., “Bell’s Theorem Without Inequalities.”

Bohm reimagined it: Bohm, “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables. II,” 186–87.

not just of creating dainty patterns: Maudlin, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, 119.

it might be possible: Valentini, “Beyond the Quantum.”

rather than attempting to conceal it: Maudlin, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, 120–21.

the most stubborn: Mitroff, “Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists.”

supposedly airtight arguments: Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, 73–78.

ways to stay in sync: Griffiths, “Quantum Locality”; Unruh, “Minkowski Space-Time and Quantum Mechanics”; Weatherall, “The Scope and Generality of Bell’s Theorem.”

can’t draw any conclusions: Smerlak and Rovelli, “Relational EPR.”

the physicist Nick Herbert: Kaiser, How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival, chap. 9.

the supposed link: de Muynck, “Can We Escape from Bell’s Conclusion That Quantum Mechanics Describes a Non-Local Reality?” 316–17.

“can’t send a signal”: Giddings, interview by author, October 11, 2010.

“in standard quantum mechanics”: Maudlin, e-mail to author, October 18, 2012.

the name of “superdeterminism”: Davies and Brown, The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum Physics, 47.

choices can be entirely open: Ismael, “Decision and the Open Future”; List, “Free Will, Determinism, and the Possibility of Doing Otherwise.”

debate the question: Grim, “Free Will in Context: A Contemporary Philosophical Perspective.”

set up in advance: Price, Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time, 234–40; Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 100–104, 154.

crazy-sounding ideas: ’t Hooft, “Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings,” 14, 21–22.

“impossible to formulate”: Gerard ’t Hooft, e-mail to author, December 31, 2009.

“looks like a conspiracy”: ’t Hooft, “The Future of Quantum Mechanics.”

that slight restriction: Barrett and Gisin, “How Much Measurement Independence Is Needed to Demonstrate Nonlocality?”; Hall, “Relaxed Bell Inequalities and Kochen-Specker Theorems.”

“Constraints are common”: Fine, e-mail to author, June 24, 2011.

have yet to occur: Price, Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point, chaps. 5, 8.

particles are precognitive: Wheeler and Feynman, “Classical Electrodynamics in Terms of Direct Interparticle Action.”

“Reverse causation can”: Maudlin, e-mail to author, March 31, 2011.

we don’t routinely see: Price, Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point, chap. 7.

not to open a portal into the past: Ibid., 128–29, 173–74, 243–44, 247–48, 250.

sees the coin turn up heads: Wallace, The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation, 36–38.

near-duplicates of you: DeWitt, “Quantum Mechanics and Reality.”

the cosmological prolificacy: Gell-Mann and Hartle, “Quantum Mechanics in the Light of Quantum Cosmology,” 340; Smerlak and Rovelli, “Relational EPR”; Griffiths, “EPR, Bell, and Quantum Locality”; Maudlin, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, 216–20.

no need for nonlocal influences: Bacciagaluppi, “Remarks on Space-Time and Locality in Everett’s Interpretation.”

“looking out for hours”: Zeilinger, interview by author.

“the fundamental questions”: Ibid.

“Something was missing”: Ibid.

he rather likes it: Zeilinger, “On the Interpretation and Philosophical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics.”

not a feminist bank teller: Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 157–59.

arrive at a contradiction: Lapkiewicz et al., “Experimental Non-Classicality of an Indivisible Quantum System.”

“the main culprit”: Zeilinger, “Testing Concepts of Reality with Entangled Photons in the Laboratory and Outside.”

“something different”: Maudlin, “Special Relativity and Quantum Entanglement: How Compatible Are They?”

“He derived it”: Ibid.

rederive his theorem: Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 150, 157n10.

they deny any need: Zeilinger, “On the Interpretation and Philosophical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics.”

“you don’t need nonlocality”: Zeilinger, “Testing Concepts of Reality with Entangled Photons.”

“get to the bottom of it”: Albert, “Physics and Narrative.”

“your money’s worth”: David Z. Albert, interview by author, March 16, 2011, Dresden, Germany.

“very brilliant people”: Jon P. Jarrett, e-mail to author, July 11, 2011.

“Annual income twenty pounds”: Dickens, The Personal History of David Copperfield, 231.

“it was stuffy”: Zeilinger, interview by author.

combined with ordinary light or radio signals: Brassard, “Quantum Communication Complexity (A Survey).”

the nonlocal link: Mattle et al., “Dense Coding in Experimental Quantum Communication.”

break the entanglement: Jennewein et al., “Quantum Cryptography with Entangled Photons.”

“secure” or “blind” computation: Barz et al., “Demonstration of Blind Quantum Computing.”

in a scrambled form: He, “Simple Quantum Protocols for the Millionaire Problem with a Semi-Honest Third Party.”

“disbelieve all facts and theories”: James, The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, 10.

“not totally amazed”: Nicolas Gisin, interview by author, November 8, 2010, Geneva.

“steer” its partner: Schrödinger, “Discussion of Probability Relations Between Separated Systems”; Wiseman, Jones, and Doherty, “Steering, Entanglement, Nonlocality, and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.”

can remain muted: Popescu, “Bell’s Inequalities and Density Matrices: Revealing ‘Hidden’ Nonlocality.”

evading government surveillance: Branciard et al., “One-Sided Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution: Security, Feasibility, and the Connection with Steering.”

envisioned “superquantum” coins: Rohrlich and Popescu, “Nonlocality as an Axiom for Quantum Theory.”

an available time slot: Brassard et al., “A Limit on Nonlocality in Any World in Which Communication Complexity Is Not Trivial.”

an all-pervading fluid: Bohm and Vigier, “Model of the Causal Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of a Fluid with Irregular Fluctuations.”

high but still finite speed: Bancal et al., “Quantum Non-Locality Based on Finite-Speed Causal Influences Leads to Superluminal Signalling.”

already at its destination: Van Fraassen, Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View, 351.

flashing warning light: Bohm and Hiley, The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory, 42, 350, 374–78.

“I’m asking myself”: ’t Hooft, interview by author, June 4, 2011, New York.

effectively nonlocal: Price, Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point, 223–24.

a breed of nonlocality: Allori et al., “Many Worlds and Schrödinger’s First Quantum Theory,” 13–15; Wallace, The Emergent Multiverse, 303–10.

to be an individual: Howard, “A Peek Behind the Veil of Maya.”

share all your memories: Tegmark, “Parallel Universes.”

Which one of them is you?: Wallace, The Emergent Multiverse, 275–76.

no explanation is possible: Van Fraassen, Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View, 372–74.

perhaps nothing causes: Fine, “Do Correlations Need to Be Explained?”

“belief in determinism”: Fine, e-mail to author, April 27, 2011.

“We have randomness”: Gisin, interview by author.

a failure of either aspect: Einstein, “Autobiographical Notes,” 85.

go together in reality: Jones and Clifton, “Against Experimental Metaphysics”; Cushing, “Locality/Separability: Is This Necessarily a Useful Distinction?” 111; Spekkens, “The Paradigm of Kinematics and Dynamics Must Yield to Causal Structure,” 4.

an empty statement: Shimony, “Aspects of Nonlocality in Quantum Mechanics,” 119; Ismael, “What Entanglement Might Be Telling Us,” 14.

loses none of its power: Maudlin, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, 22–24; Lange, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics: Locality, Fields, Energy, and Mass, 281.

“emerging in an organic way”: Jenann Ismael, Skype interview by author, April 9, 2014.

a kind of union: Minkowski, “Raum Und Zeit.”

handled with care: Healey, “Holism and Nonseparability.”

alternative-medicine practitioners: Maudlin, “Part and Whole in Quantum Mechanics,” 55.

“from outside spacetime”: Gisin, interview by author.

“a fundamental failing”: Maudlin, “Part and Whole,” 55–56.

“no story in spacetime”: Gisin, interview by author.

5. NONLOCALITY AND THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS

“streams of climbers”: Giddings, e-mail to author, March 7, 2014.

“community wasn’t quite ready”: Giddings, e-mail to author, July 4, 2013.

implicitly assumed that forces leap: Strocchi, “Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory,” 508.

“this wonderful theory”: Hertz, Miscellaneous Papers, 318.

a big tangle: Ashtekar and Rovelli, “A Loop Representation for the Quantum Maxwell Field.”

“formerly known as strings”: Duff, “The Theory Formerly Known as Strings.”

“AdS/CFT duality”: Horowitz and Polchinski, “Gauge/Gravity Duality.”

“the birth and growth”: Donald Marolf, e-mail to author, June 17, 2013.

“in the Alaska twilight”: Giddings, e-mail to author, March 7, 2014.

couldn’t explain light: Weinberg, “The Search for Unity: Notes for a History of Quantum Field Theory,” 21.

ultimately particle or wave: Schweber, QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga, xxvi, 1–2, 37.

created and annihilated: Teller, An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, 82.

big effervescent gobs: Ibid., 112–13.

not motes of matter: Ibid., 69–81.

case of convergent evolution: Schweber, QED and the Men Who Made It, 53.

As Pauli pointed out: Blum, “From the Necessary to the Possible: The Genesis of the Spin-Statistics Theorem,” 553–54.

chopped into two parts: Pauli, “The Connection Between Spin and Statistics,” 721; Teller, An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, 83–84.

alternatives also divvy up space: Wright, “Quantum Field Theory: Motivating the Axiom of Microcausality.”

often deeply doubtful: Weinberg, “The Search for Unity,” 24–26; Schweber, QED and the Men Who Made It, 83–85.

retook his first course: Joseph Polchinski, e-mail to author, July 8, 2013.

scared most of them off: Teller, Interpretive Introduction, vii.

“what the mathematics means”: Hans P. Halvorson, interview by author, July 5, 2013, Princeton, NJ.

two different places at once: Teller, Interpretive Introduction, 86–87, 109; Halvorson and Clifton, “No Place for Particles in Relativistic Quantum Theories?”; Duncan, The Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theory, 160–63.

banished nonlocality, not entrenched it: Halvorson, “Locality, Localization, and the Particle Concept: Topics in the Foundations of Quantum Field Theory,” 169–70.

“gives rise to nonlocality”: Halvorson, interview by author.

only if relativity did not fully apply: Newton and Wigner, “Localized States for Elementary Systems”; Teller, Interpretive Introduction, 56, 85–89.

see it suddenly leap: Ruijsenaars, “On Newton-Wigner Localization and Superluminal Propagation Speeds”; Hegerfeldt, “Violation of Causality in Relativistic Quantum Theory?”; Malament, “In Defense of Dogma: Why There Cannot Be a Relativistic Quantum Mechanics of (Localizable) Particles.”

differing answers: Halvorson, “Locality, Localization, and the Particle Concept,” 64; Kuhlmann, “What Is Real?”

“There isn’t anything”: Halvorson, interview by author.

on a guitar string: Auyang, How Is Quantum Field Theory Possible?, 51–53, 157–60.

waves are so jumbled: Fraser, “The Fate of ‘Particles’ in Quantum Field Theories with Interactions.”

break down a big problem: Teller, Interpretive Introduction, 139–42.

“anything about reality”: Halvorson, interview by author.

conveyor belts and rolling drums: Morus, When Physics Became King, 81–84.

can’t be an array of pixels: Teller, Interpretive Introduction, 80–81, 98–99.

also rule out pixels: Halvorson, “Algebraic Quantum Field Theory,” 778–79; Baker, “Against Field Interpretations of Quantum Field Theory.”

“seems like it’s backfired”: Halvorson, interview by author.

don’t convey information: Peskin and Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, 27–29.

version of the spooky synchrony: Wald, “Correlations and Causality in Quantum Field Theory,” 300; Reznik, “Distillation of Vacuum Entanglement to EPR Pairs”; Franson, “Generation of Entanglement Outside of the Light Cone.”

points in the field are: Summers and Werner, “The Vacuum Violates Bell’s Inequalities”; Clifton et al., “Superentangled States.”

“constrained in momentum”: Halvorson, interview by author.

“superentanglement”: Clifton et al., “Superentangled States.”

points lying beyond: Wald, “Correlations and Causality in Quantum Field Theory,” 301.

sever the bonds: Clifton and Halvorson, “Entanglement and Open Systems in Algebraic Quantum Field Theory.”

residual random jittering: Summers and Werner, “The Vacuum Violates Bell’s Inequalities”; Redhead, “More Ado About Nothing.”

“You may have forgotten”: Halvorson, interview by author.

despite various proposals: Retzker, Cirac, and Reznik, “Detecting Vacuum Entanglement in a Linear Ion Trap”; Sabín et al., “Dynamics of Entanglement via Propagating Microwave Photons.”

a smidge farther apart: Summers and Werner, “The Vacuum Violates Bell’s Inequalities,” 258–59; Halvorson, “Locality, Localization, and the Particle Concept,” 18.

“nonlocality at all distances”: Halvorson, interview by author.

fields may become: Reznik, “Distillation of Vacuum Entanglement to EPR Pairs.”

entangled with each other: Haroche and Raimond, Exploring the Quantum: Atoms, Cavities, and Photons, 285.

a Bollywood movie: Wen, “Topological Order: From Long-Range Entangled Quantum Matter to a Unified Origin of Light and Electrons.”

that once seemed magical: Sachdev, “Strange and Stringy.”

“Laypeople love it”: Arkani-Hamed, interview by author, September 24, 2013, Princeton, NJ.

“think of mutual entanglement”: Arkani-Hamed, interview by author, March 29, 2012, Pasadena, CA.

Faraday conducted electrical experiments: Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity, vol. 1, 83–84, 364–66; Healey, Gauging What’s Real: The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Gauge Theories, 4, 155–57.

“lighted candles, electrometers”: Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity, vol. 1, 366.

mathematical complications: Hatfield, Quantum Field Theory of Point Particles and Strings, 77–81.

“a complete fiction”: Arkani-Hamed, “Space-Time, Quantum Mechanics and Scattering Amplitudes.”

“the first of many, many hints”: Arkani-Hamed, interview by author, September 24, 2013.

fudge factor: Belot, “Understanding Electromagnetism,” 541–42; Healey, Gauging What’s Real, 25–26, 49.

fix the value: Bork, “Maxwell and the Vector Potential.”

disturbances in the potential: Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 222–23.

to “murder” it: Hunt, The Maxwellians, 115–18, 165–66.

in the argot: Castellani, “Dirac on Gauges and Constraints.”

Because of the constraint: Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 271.

the constraint is defined: Strocchi, “Gauss’ Law in Local Quantum Field Theory,” 229–31; Ashtekar and Rovelli, “A Loop Representation for the Quantum Maxwell Field,” 1149.

freedom from such constraints: Earman, “Locality, Nonlocality, and Action at a Distance: A Skeptical Review of Some Philosophical Dogmas,” 457, 458.

Electrons, rather than lighted candles: Aharonov and Bohm, “Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory.”

tricky to do: Matteucci and Pozzi, “New Diffraction Experiment on the Electrostatic Aharonov-Bohm Effect.”

analogous test for magnetism: Ibid.; Chambers, “Shift of an Electron Interference Pattern by Enclosed Magnetic Flux.”

this came as a shock: Ramsey, Spectroscopy with Coherent Radiation: Selected Papers of Norman F. Ramsey, 399.

localized structures are mismatched: Wu and Yang, “Concept of Nonintegrable Phase Factors and Global Formulation of Gauge Fields.”

“high school physics”: Richard A. Healey, interview by author, March 22, 2014, Irvine, CA.

“I felt very lonely”: Healey, “New Thoughts on Yang-Mills Theories.”

more as spectators: Healey, Gauging What’s Real, 31, 53, 127; Wallace, The Emergent Multiverse, 294n7.

“People draw distinctions”: Healey, interview by author.

separable almost by definition: Howard, “Holism, Separability and the Metaphysical Implications of the Bell Experiments,” 232–40.

goes back to Dirac: Dirac, “Quantised Singularities in the Electromagnetic Field”; Mandelstam, “Quantum Electrodynamics Without Potentials”; Wu and Yang, “Concept of Nonintegrable Phase Factors.”

“Loops, not points”: Healey, e-mail to author, July 24, 2013.

satisfying local action: Lyre, “Holism and Structuralism in U(1) Gauge Theory,” 657–60.

left with some ambiguity: Rozali, “Comments on Background Independence and Gauge Redundancies.”

“not losing the points”: Healey, interview by author.

“a question about here”: Marolf, interview by author, October 12, 2010, Santa Barbara, CA.

resurvey tectonic zones: Musser, “What Happens to Google Maps When Tectonic Plates Move?”

Earth’s mass warps time: Unruh, “Time, Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics”; Schutz, Gravity from the Ground Up: An Introductory Guide to Gravity and General Relativity, 229–32.

the warping of space: Schutz, Gravity from the Ground Up, 234–36.

a mini-wormhole: Howard, “Holism, Separability, and the Metaphysical Implications of the Bell Experiments,” 251–52; Maldacena and Susskind, “Cool Horizons for Entangled Black Holes.”

random and unaccountable things: Coleman, “Why There Is Nothing Rather Than Something: A Theory of the Cosmological Constant”; Markopoulou and Smolin, “Quantum Theory from Quantum Gravity.”

overlap with itself: Misner and Wheeler, “Classical Physics as Geometry,” 552.

To foil such paradoxes: Horwich, Asymmetries in Time: Problems in the Philosophy of Science, 124–25; Friedman et al., “Cauchy Problem in Spacetimes with Closed Timelike Curves.”

constraint is a form of nonlocality: Earman, “Recent Work on Time Travel”; Arntzenius and Maudlin, “Time Travel and Modern Physics.”

no external or absolute standard: Misner, “Feynman Quantization of General Relativity,” 499; Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Gravitation, 429–31; Rovelli, Quantum Gravity, 65–75.

“honestly, Einstein didn’t understand”: Marolf, interview by author, October 12, 2010.

shape of space would become ambiguous: Stachel, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z,’ 323–25.

“in the reshuffled spacetime”: Marolf, e-mail to author, June 26, 2013.

“to the whole spacetime”: Marolf, interview by author, March 26, 2012, Santa Barbara, CA.

version of gauge invariance: Kuchař, “Time and Interpretations of Quantum Gravity,” 2–3.

lack any differentiating attributes: Stachel, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z,’ 312–18.

Those quantities must be holistic: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Gravitation, 466–68; Rickles, Symmetry, Structure, and Spacetime, 129–31.

“Any theory of gravity”: Marolf, “Discussion: Holography and Unitarity in Black Hole Evaporation.”

some independent reality: Earman, World Enough and Space-Time: Absolute Versus Rational Theories of Space and Time, 96–108, Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, 73–75.

anchor a coordinate grid: Rovelli, Quantum Gravity, 88–96.

“in a continuous way”: Marolf, interview by author, March 26, 2012.

still only “pseudo-local”: Giddings, Marolf, and Hartle, “Observables in Effective Gravity.”

how strong it will be: Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, 841.

“we would never know”: Gibbons, “Black Holes and Information.”

holistic feature of spacetime: Lam, “Structural Aspects of Space-Time Singularities.”

having an edge: Harrison, Cosmology: The Science of the Universe, 149–53.

toyed with hypothetical models: Randall and Sundrum, “A Large Mass Hierarchy from a Small Extra Dimension.”

fixes the shape of space: Marolf, “Holographic Thought Experiments,” 2.

“nailed to the boundary”: Marolf, e-mail to author, February 24, 2014.

Locality on the boundary: Marolf, “Unitarity and Holography in Gravitational Physics”; Marolf, “Holography Without Strings?”

“equal to bulk observables”: Marolf, e-mail to author, October 17, 2013.

can’t be as fundamental: Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, 477.

the dissolution of space: Gorelik, “Matvei Bronstein and Quantum Gravity: 70th Anniversary of the Unsolved Problem.”

limit of the reductionist program: Seiberg, “Emergent Spacetime,” 176.

Einstein wrote to a friend: Stachel, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z,’ 149.

spontaneously on all scales: Wilczek, “Quantum Field Theory,” S87–S88.

the continuum must crumble: Beller, Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution, 19–22.

“lattice world”: Carazza and Kragh, “Heisenberg’s Lattice World: The 1930 Theory Sketch.”

come into play on small scales: Zee, Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, chap. 8.3.

no amount of rounding out: Rovelli, Quantum Gravity, 404.

threatens to disintegrate: Markopoulou, “Space Does Not Exist, So Time Can,” 4.

like a balloon: Witten, “Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime”; Martinec, “Evolving Notions of Geometry in String Theory.”

“simply no longer valid”: Polchinski, interview by author, October 13, 2010, Santa Barbara, CA.

also in the macroverse: Markopoulou and Smolin, “Disordered Locality in Loop Quantum Gravity States.”

“something very small”: Markopoulou, telephone interview by author.

miniature tuning forks: O’Connell et al., “Quantum Ground State and Single-Phonon Control of a Mechanical Resonator.”

“long-distance issues”: Giddings, interview by author, May 14, 2012.

an uneasy silence: Redhead, “More Ado About Nothing.”

does not, in fact, think they cancel out: Teller, An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, 110–11.

draining the hole: Jacobson, “Introduction to Quantum Fields in Curved Spacetime and the Hawking Effect,” 23–27.

not a vacuum: Mathur, “The Information Paradox: A Pedagogical Introduction”; Almheiri et al., “Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?”

“a violent breakdown”: Polchinski, interview by author.

doubling the radius: ’t Hooft, “Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity,” 288.

entropy increases fourfold: Bekenstein, “Black Holes and Entropy.”

squeezing hard enough: Ibid., 2339.

boundary and volume are equivalent: Rickles, “AdS/CFT Duality and the Emergence of Spacetime.”

the boundary is the fundamental reality: Bousso, “The Holographic Principle,” 859–60.

“it’s still very obscure”: Daniel Kabat, interview by author, April 13, 2012. Bits, Branes, Black Holes, Santa Barbara, CA.

In Maldacena’s approach: Seiberg, “Emergent Spacetime,” 171–72; Horowitz and Polchinski, “Gauge/Gravity Duality.”

gave Maldacena a lift: Alex Maloney, interview by author, March 23, 2012. Bits, Branes, Black Holes, Santa Barbara, CA.

6. SPACETIME IS DOOMED

“didn’t tell my sister”: Ismael, e-mail to author, May 20, 2015.

“a piece of glass”: Ismael, Skype interview by author.

metaphor for nonlocality: Ismael, “What Entanglement Might Be Telling Us,” 1–2.

“different parts of space”: Ibid.

“the fundamental level”: Michael Heller, interview by author, March 13, 2008, New York.

prime matter: Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 2, The Presocratic Tradition from Parmenides to Democritus, 143.

rearrangements of atoms: Leucippus and Democritus, The Atomists, Leucippus and Democritus, 85n78; Lucretius, The Nature of Things, 7–11, 25–27.

“something more basic”: Arkani-Hamed, telephone interview by author.

“talk about emergent spacetime”: Arkani-Hamed, telephone interview by author.

the realm beyond space: Stump and Kretzmann, “Eternity”; Heller, “Where Physics Meets Metaphysics,” 263–64.

step toward emergent spacetime: Slowik, “The Deep Metaphysics of Quantum Gravity: The Seventeenth Century Legacy and an Alternative Ontology Beyond Substantivalism and Relationism.”

“to breathe in empty space”: Einstein, “Physics and Reality,” 378.

built out of “pregeometry”: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Gravitation, 1212.

“outside our usual language”: Arkani-Hamed, telephone interview by author.

“For 2,000-plus years”: Arkani-Hamed, “Space-Time, Quantum Mechanics, and the Large Hadron Collider.”

what it’ll do in the future: Earman, A Primer on Determinism, 4–7, 30–31.

Rube Goldberg contraptions: OK Go, “This Too Shall Pass.”

glue that binds the universe: Barbour, The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics, 18.

limited by the spatial arrangement: Lieb and Robinson, “The Finite Group Velocity of Quantum Spin Systems.”

“interactive distance”: Albert, “Elementary Quantum Metaphysics.”

“the lion is close”: Albert, interview by author, April 18, 2011, New York.

one mystery for another: Maudlin, “Buckets of Water and Waves of Space: Why Spacetime Is Probably a Substance,” 192–94, 196.

the “inverse problem”: Smolin, Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe, 184–86.

“Where spacetime exists”: Moshe Rozali, telephone interview by author, July 13, 2011.

time isn’t emergent: Smolin, Time Reborn; Maudlin, New Foundations for Physical Geometry.

a powerful organizing role: Musser, “Could Time End?”

turned this thinking upside down: Leibniz, Philosophical Papers and Letters: A Selection, vol. 2, 666–74; Mehlberg, Time, Causality, and the Quantum Theory, vol. 1, 42–50.

map out the entire world: Bombelli et al., “Space-Time as a Causal Set.”

the number of such atoms: Riemann, “On the Hypotheses Which Lie at the Bases of Geometry,” 37.

relations must be highly ordered: Dowker, “Causal Sets and the Deep Structure of Spacetime,” 454; Henson, “The Causal Set Approach to Quantum Gravity,” 405.

“nothing like spacetime”: Dowker, interview by author.

they are all interlocked: Barbour, “The Nature of Time.”

“the interdependence of things”: Mach, The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development, 223, 224.

the odometer mileage: Michael Mouser, telephone interview by author, June 3, 2014.

The distances obey: Lefschetz, Introduction to Topology, 28.

lose several more numbers: Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, 8; Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, 6–8; Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Gravitation, 306–308.

“It’s data compression”: Julian B. Barbour, interview by author, May 22, 2010, at Laws of Nature: Their Nature and Knowability, conference, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, May 20–22, 2010.

“unmediated” distances: Nerlich, The Shape of Space, 18–23.

struggling to follow Game of Thrones: McGoldrick, Gerson, and Petry, Genograms: Assessment and Intervention.

This kind of self-organizing: Smith and Foley, “Classical Thermodynamics and Economic General Equilibrium Theory.”

relationships become regimented: Markopoulou, “Space Does Not Exist, So Time Can,” 7–8.

mind-bogglingly complex: Rovelli, “‘Forget Time.’”

space as a network: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Gravitation, 1203–12; Bohm and Hiley, The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory, 374–78; Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, 946–50; Finkelstein, “Space-Time Code.”

trying to make the idea work: Kaplunovsky and Weinstein, “Space-Time: Arena or Illusion?”; Meschini, Lehto, and Piilonen, “Geometry, Pregeometry and Beyond.”

inject a sense of humor: Konopka, Markopoulou, and Severini, “Quantum Graphity: A Model of Emergent Locality.”

from earthquakes to ecosystems: Stanley et al., “Scale Invariance and Universality: Organizing Principles in Complex Systems.”

“very ambitious and dangerous”: Claus Kiefer, interview by author, August 31, 2011, Copenhagen.

“just put out your hand”: Markopoulou and Kuhn, “Why Is the Universe So Breathtaking?”

passage of the signal: Hamma and Markopoulou, “Background-Independent Condensed Matter Models for Quantum Gravity.”

“cool the universe”: Markopoulou, interview by author.

the primordial grains: Hamma and Markopoulou, “Background-Independent Condensed Matter Models,” 13–16.

“causal dynamical triangulations”: Loll, Ambjørn, and Jurkiewicz, “The Universe from Scratch.”

jelly-bean experiment: Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations, 5.

errors offset one another: Ibid., 10–11, 27–30.

but the twisty paths: Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, 53–54.

best-known matrix model: Banks et al., “M Theory as a Matrix Model: A Conjecture.”

“bunch of Tinkertoy parts”: Leonard Susskind, interview by author, February 18, 2011, Palo Alto, CA.

the endpoints of strings: Musser, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to String Theory, 155.

its constituents’ self-interactions: Banks, “The State of Matrix Theory,” 342–43; Martinec, “Evolving Notions of Geometry in String Theory,” 167–68.

“just a cancellation”: Susskind, interview by author.

“not the behavior we expect”: Emil J. Martinec, e-mail to author, May 10, 2014.

the scale of waves: Susskind and Witten, “The Holographic Bound in Anti–de Sitter Space”; Balasubramanian and Kraus, “Spacetime and the Holographic Renormalization Group.”

a dramatic way of putting it: Sundrum, “From Fixed Points to the Fifth Dimension.”

“drawing the Washington Monument”: Raman Sundrum, Skype interview by author, October 3, 2014.

A Chinese gong: Fletcher, “Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos in Musical Instruments.”

propagating through scale: Balasubramanian et al., “Holographic Probes of Anti–de Sitter Spacetimes”; Heemskerk et al., “Holography from Conformal Field Theory.”

stitching space together: Mark Van Raamsdonk, interview by author, September 30, 2010, Vancouver, B.C.

creates space: Nishioka, Ryu, and Takayanagi, “Holographic Entanglement Entropy: An Overview”; Van Raamsdonk, “Building Up Spacetime with Quantum Entanglement”; Swingle, “Constructing Holographic Spacetimes Using Entanglement Renormalization.”

“disordered locality”: Markopoulou and Smolin, “Disordered Locality in Loop Quantum Gravity States.”

the term “long links”: Brian Swingle, e-mail to author, August 22, 2014.

to explain particles: Einstein and Rosen, “The Particle Problem in the General Theory of Relativity.”

join entangled particles: Jensen and Karch, “Holographic Dual of an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Pair Has a Wormhole”; Baez and Vicary, “Wormholes and Entanglement.”

“closeness through the wormhole”: Juan Maldacena, interview by author, September 17, 2013, Princeton, NJ.

like overkill: Maudlin, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics, 238.

pinches off the wormhole: Maldacena and Susskind, “Cool Horizons for Entangled Black Holes,” 782.

so inordinately difficult: Swingle, Skype interview by author, August 21, 2014.

a gibberish one: Markopoulou and Smolin, “Disordered Locality,” 3822; Valentini, “Beyond the Quantum,” 36.

“engulfed by globality”: Heller, interview by author.

philosophers and sociologists: Pettit, The Common Mind: An Essay on Psychology, Society, and Politics, 166–73.

sensitive to what happens: Heller and Sasin, “Einstein-Podolski-Rosen Experiment from Noncommutative Quantum Gravity”; Heller and Sasin, “Nonlocal Phenomena from Noncommutative Pre-Planckian Regime.”

set the cosmos in motion: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Gravitation, 1196–97.

shaped itself: Craps, Sethi, and Verlinde, “A Matrix Big Bang”; Martinec, Robbins, and Sethi, “Toward the End of Time.”

ancient creation myths: Casey, The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History, 9–16.

“ultralocality”: Carlip, “Spontaneous Dimensional Reduction?”; Mielczarek, “Asymptotic Silence in Loop Quantum Cosmology.”

would have sloshed around: Hamma and Markopoulou, “Background-Independent Condensed Matter Models,” 12; McFadden and Skenderis, “Observational Signatures of Holographic Models of Inflation.”

“a completely connected graph”: Markopoulou, e-mail to author.

A phase transition: Easther et al., “Constraining Holographic Inflation with WMAP”; Dreyer, “The World Is Discrete.”

a fluid turmoil: Witten, “Anti–de Sitter Space, Thermal Phase Transition, and Confinement in Gauge Theories.”

“conventional geometric notion”: Martinec, e-mail to author, April 23, 2010.

effectively infinite-dimensional: Sekino and Susskind, “Fast Scramblers.”

finding the exit: Hamma and Markopoulou, “Background-Independent Condensed Matter Models for Quantum Gravity,” 16–17.

“acts as a trap”: Markopoulou, interview by author.

the black hole disperses: Banks et al., “Schwarzschild Black Holes from Matrix Theory,” 229; Horowitz, Lawrence, and Silverstein, “Insightful D-Branes,” 18–20.

“this huge space of states”: Martinec, e-mail to author, August 12, 2014.

“eating up spacetime”: Rozali, telephone interview by author.

becomes too disordered: Balasubramanian, “What We Don’t Know About Time,” 109–111.

in four dimensions: Sachdev, “Strange and Stringy.”

an inner simplicity: Nastase, “The RHIC Fireball as a Dual Black Hole”; Horowitz and Polchinski, “Gauge/Gravity Duality,” 181.

preprogrammed into the rules: Nerlich, The Shape of Space, chap. 1; Meschini, Lehto, and Piilonen, “Geometry, Pregeometry and Beyond.”

“What are the rules?” Martinec, interview by author, June 18, 2014, Chicago.

“Space is totally overrated”: Carroll, “Setting Time Aright.”

emergence without presupposing time: Heller and Sasin, “Emergence of Time”; Balasubramanian, “What We Don’t Know About Time”; Aoki et al., “Space-Time Structures from IIB Matrix Model.”

the emergent dimension is temporal: Strominger, “Inflation and the dS/CFT Correspondence.”

CONCLUSION: THE AMPLITUHEDRON

controversial visit to Copenhagen: Powers, Heisenberg’s War: The Secret History of the German Bomb, 120–28.

American spy: Ibid., 294–97.

Berg let him live: Ibid., 394–401.

S-matrix tabulates: Cushing, Theory Construction and Selection in Modern Physics: The S Matrix, 32–34; Schweber, QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga, 154–55.

do full-up calculations: Weinberg, “The Search for Unity: Notes for a History of Quantum Field Theory,” 26–30.

the S-matrix regained its appeal: Cushing, Theory Construction and Selection, 115–18.

all there is: Ibid., 142–45.

“such an unobservable continuum”: Chew, “The Dubious Role of the Space-Time Continuum in Subatomic Physics,” 529.

nothing is more fundamental: Capra, The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, 286–87.

like sudoku: Chew, “‘Bootstrap’: A Scientific Idea?” 763–64.

on macroscopic scales: Stapp, “Space and Time in S-Matrix Theory”; Capra, The Tao of Physics, 318.

“nature consistent with itself”: Ibid., 762.

no unique S-matrix: Gross, “Twenty Five Years of Asymptotic Freedom,” 429.

expanded the framework: Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, 962–66.

more fundamental than local ones: Ibid., 963, 991.

the word “twistor”: Ibid., 980–82.

“are encoded nonlocally”: Lionel Mason, interview by author, March 14, 2010, Oxford.

“Line-of-sight ideas”: Andrew Hodges, interview by author, March 16, 2010, Oxford.

to all those stars: Penrose, The Road to Reality, 1049.

“closer than yesterday”: Rafael D. Sorkin, e-mail to author, November 16, 2007.

“googly” problem: Penrose, The Road to Reality, 1000.

“He’s very dogged”: Mason, interview by author, March 14, 2010.

“the ugly duckling”: Arkani-Hamed, “Space-Time, Quantum Mechanics and Scattering Amplitudes.”

“excitement and depression”: Halvorson, interview by author.

“I’m discouraged more”: Markopoulou, interview by author.

“It’s the rest of my life”: Markopoulou, telephone interview by author.

seventy-page monster: Witten, “Perturbative Gauge Theory as a String Theory in Twistor Space.”

“fascinating and exciting”: Roger Penrose, interview by author, March 15, 2010, Oxford.

twistors in their heyday: Witten, “An Interpretation of Classical Yang-Mills Theory.”

“basically thinking off and on”: Edward Witten, e-mail to author, January 6, 2015.

“this beautiful idea”: Mason, interview by author, March 14, 2010.

inputs and outputs: Britto et al., “Direct Proof of the Tree-Level Scattering Amplitude Recursion Relation in Yang-Mills Theory.”

“‘Revenge of the Analytic S-Matrix’”: Lance J. Dixon, e-mail to author, February 16, 2010.

“like Andrew’s pictures”: Arkani-Hamed, telephone interview by author.

geometrically using twistors: Arkani-Hamed et al., “A Note on Polytopes for Scattering Amplitudes.”

a suitably funky name: Arkani-Hamed and Trnka, “The Amplituhedron.”

“There are no fields”: Jaroslav Trnka, e-mail to author, September 16, 2014.

“Simple geometric properties”: Arkani-Hamed, interview by author, September 24, 2013.

“These building blocks”: Ibid.

Science is dispute: Beller, Quantum Dialogue, 310; Freire, The Quantum Dissidents, 2–4.

“all the blind alleys”: Arkani-Hamed, interview by author, September 24, 2013.

when challenged, doubling down: Mitroff, “Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists,” 588–89.

a comfort level: Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists, 113–23.

origins in wrong ideas: Johnson, Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation, 134–39.

“Darwinian survival value”: Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design, 271.

“children of their age”: Schrödinger, Science and the Human Temperament, 80.

“death of distance”: Cairncross, The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution Will Change Our Lives.

the boundaries of the self: Thurschwell, Literature, Technology and Magical Thinking, 1880–1920, 12–14.

during Hurricane Katrina: Baum, “Deluged.”

within a few tens of miles: Wijsman and Cavalli-Sforza, “Migration and Genetic Population Structure with Special Reference to Humans.”

college-educated people: Taylor et al., “American Mobility: Who Moves? Who Stays Put? Where’s Home?”

meld into a mob: Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect, chap. 13.

“the great uniters and dividers”: Schlick, General Theory of Knowledge, 53.

dark matter and dark energy: Seiberg, “Emergent Spacetime,” 167; Henson, “The Causal Set Approach to Quantum Gravity,” 13; Prescod-Weinstein and Smolin, “Disordered Locality as an Explanation for the Dark Energy”; Verlinde, “The Dark Phase Space of de Sitter.”

faster than light: Hashimoto and Itzhaki, “Traveling Faster Than the Speed of Light in Noncommutative Geometry”; Valentini, “Beyond the Quantum.”