The title of the book is The Evolution of Physics.

Given there is still plenty of daylight, but my brain could use a break, I decided to revisit Nolan’s Oppenheimer. Why not, right?

In it, the woman asks, “Can you explain quantum mechanics to me? It seems baffling.”

Nolan has Oppie answer, “It is.”

He continues, “This glass— This drink— Our bodies— are mostly empty space, groupings of tiny energy waves bound together-”

She interrupts, attention laser focused, “By what?”

“Forces of attraction strong enough to convince us ‘matter is solid’.”

I do not know where Nolan got his material. I can imagine that he read Oppenheimer’s own writing and deduced this or—cringe—Oppenheimer even said this. I can imagine it, but I don’t believe it.

The problem with that definition is it neglectfully forgets a key point—or two, to be precise.

First, and this is directly from Einstein, it isn’t merely “tiny energy waves” but should say, “empty space, groupings of invisible energy waves.” And second, add “and energy particles”.

In full, and I hope to bring out for us lay folks the full sense of what I read in the clearest possible manner, if defined by Einstein, according the format Nolan introduced, the answer to “What is quantum mechanics?” when asked by a thin woman as a come-on (sapiosexual) at a bar is, “This glass, this drink, our bodies are mostly empty space—groupings of invisible energy waves and energy particles bound together by forces of attraction strong enough to convince us ‘matter is solid’.”

Put shorter—for illustrative purposes because I know this is uncommon—“Our bodies are invisible.”

Paraphrasing Einstein, for this claim to be true and/or accurate (the claim that “‘our bodies are invisible’ is quantum mechanics”) this claim must be tempered with, “when moving near the speed of light and observed indirectly.”

Now. You. Know.