P. 9:
Replace
“discover the full mathematical form”
with
“glimpse the full mathematical form”
(Thanks to Chris Fuchs for pointing this out.)
P. 15:
Replace
“There’s no evidence Einstein was even aware”
with
“Einstein may not have been aware”
P. 17:
Replace
“discovered in 1925 by Erwin”
with
“discovered in the mid-1920s by Erwin”
(Thanks to Chris Fuchs for pointing this out.)
P. 17:
Replace
“the probability that the electron is in that place”
with
“the probability that you’ll find the electron in that place”
(Thanks to Jeff Barrett for pointing this out.)
P. 33:
Replace
“Rudolf Peierls, one of Bohr’s students”
with
“Rudolf Peierls, one of Bohr’s colleagues”
(Thanks to Chris Fuchs for pointing this out.)
P. 34:
Replace
“in December 1925.”
with
“over New Year’s 1925-26.”
(Thanks to Chris Fuchs for pointing this out.)
P. 38:
Replace
“buried in the mathematics of Schrodinger’s wave mechanics”
with
“buried in the mathematics of his own matrix mechanics”
(Thanks to Tom Siegfried for pointing this out.)
P. 40:
Replace
“no way to avoid altering the momentum”
with
“no way to precisely measure the momentum”
P. 46:
Replace "prince” with “duke”.
(Thanks to Yann Benétreau-Dupin for pointing this out.)
P. 48:
Replace "Wrath” with “Scourge”.
(Thanks to Chris Fuchs for pointing this out.)
P. 65:
Replace
“a $1 million cash award”
with
“about $500,000 (in today’s money)”
(Thanks to Chris Fuchs for pointing this out.)
P. 74:
Replace
“his former colleague Rudolf Peierls”
with
“his former student Rudolf Peierls”
(Thanks to Chris Fuchs for pointing this out.)
Pp. 134 and 370:
Replace "Weiner” with “Wiener”.
P. 146:
In the second paragraph, replace all instances of the word “energy” with “spin”.
(This error was a deliberate pedagogical choice on my part, but given the number of comments I’ve received about it, it was a poor choice.)
P. 165:
Remove “[sic]”.
(Thanks to Chris Fuchs for pointing this out.)
Pp. 217, 343, and 362:
Replace "Phillip” with “Philippe”.
(Thanks to Chris Fuchs for pointing this out.)
P. 224:
Replace
“keynote speech at a Caltech conference”
with
“keynote speech at an MIT conference”
(Thanks to Chris Fuchs for pointing this out.)
Pp. 226 and 359:
Replace "Giles” with “Gilles”
(Thanks to Chris Fuchs for pointing this out.)
P. 340:
Replace "transactional interpretation” with “relational interpretation”
(Thanks to Chris Fuchs for pointing this out.)
Pp. 54-55:
Replace
“In quantum physics, the situation is a little trickier. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, particles don't have properties like position or momentum (or anything else) until those properties are measured. But, EPR argued, measurements made on one particle couldn’t instantly affect another particles far away. So, to get around the uncertainty principle, just wait until particles A and B are very far apart, then find the momentum of A. Measuring A’s momentum lets you infer B’s momentum without disturbing B at all. Then simply measure the position of B. Now you know B’s position and momentum, to arbitrary precision, at the same time. Therefore, argued EPR, a particle can have a definite position and momentum at the same time. But because quantum physics doesn’t let you simultaneously predict the position and momentum of a single particle, EPR argued that it must be incomplete...”
with
“In quantum physics, the situation is a little trickier, because you can’t measure the momentum and position of a particle simultaneously. Once particles A and B are far apart, you can either measure A’s momentum, which lets you immediately infer B’s momentum, or you can measure A’s position instead, which would immediately tell you where B is. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, particles don’t have properties like position or momentum (or anything else) until those properties are measured. But, EPR argued, measurements made on one particle couldn’t instantly affect another particle far away. So B must have had a definite position and momentum all along, in order to ensure that its properties are in accordance with the outcome of whatever measurement you choose to make on far-distant A. Yet quantum physics doesn’t let you simultaneously predict the position and momentum of a single particle, so EPR argued that it must be incomplete...”
(Thanks to David Albert and David Mermin for pointing this out.)
Pp. 222, 343, 349, 362:
Replace “Nicholas Gisin” with “Nicolas Gisin”.
P. 225:
Replace
“But Deutsch didn’t actually provide an example of how a quantum computer could outperform a classical one—he had merely proven that it could be done in theory. Finding an algorithm for a computer that hadn’t been built, to outperform all existing ones, was a tall order.”
with
“But Deutsch didn’t name a practical application where a quantum computer could outperform a classical one—he had just proven that it could be done in theory, and provided a simple example. Finding a useful algorithm for a computer that hadn’t been built, to outperform all existing ones, was a tall order.”
Pp. 225-226:
Replace
“…this difficulty was the basis for nearly all forms of practical cryptography, especially for secure communications over the newly burgeoning Internet. Shor had demonstrated that any kind of secure financial transaction over a computer network—from buying books to trading stocks—would be impossible to accomplish by conventional means in a world with working quantum computers.”
with
“…this difficulty was the basis for many forms of practical cryptography, especially for secure communications over the newly burgeoning Internet. Shor had demonstrated that the kind of encryption used for nearly all financial transactions over a public computer network—from buying books to trading stocks—would be vulnerable in a world with working quantum computers.”
(Thanks to Ari Rabkin for pointing this out.)