I hate Alice. I hate Bob. Reading this book is maddening. I just want to get a clear description of the phenomena of entanglement. I figured you can't do any better than read it author Anton Zeilinger, the world's greatest authority on quantum entanglement experiments. But the text is ensnared and enmeshed in endless dumbing down in this book. It is as though one bought a book, "The Workings of a Lamborghini" written by Lamborghini himself, and it describes driving to the beach, and driving to the mountain top, and getting gas, and changing the oil, and watching the speedometer, but you never get to see the pistons, crank, chain, hydraulics, etc. --- there is no math nor attempt to describe how entanglement looks and works mathematically. There are other "equation free" physics books that manage nevertheless to describe their mathematical "engines" quite concretely, also written by preeminent physicists --- The Shape of Inner Space: String Theory and the Geometry of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions, and its antiparticle, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next.
Trying to pick up physics from physics books and papers (and even physicists!) can be very frustrating because they tend to be complacent and content to stay within physics jargon, and not translate it to the basic mathematical objects that they are in fact talking about. In mathematics one also runs into multi-story jargon, for example in algebraic geometry, which makes it very difficult to learn. But in the mathematics literature, the jargon is irreducible, because it is tagging abstract concepts built atop other abstract concepts. You simply have to climb the building from the ground floor. But the jargon in physics can be unpacked with a little insight on behalf of the writer --- and empathy. A supremely wonderful example of this is Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. It is the most clarifying book I've read in physics. It is a revelation. I hoped Dance of the Photons would be a good sequel expanding on entanglement.
Dance of the Photons takes forever to get to the point, and chooses to avoid jargon by simply avoiding the details of the underlying mathematics. I suppose there is a large class of readers for whom this is optimal. But for me, it's a problem of impedance matching. Jargon filled papers have too high impedance --- and the energy is deflected. This book has too low impedance --- and the energy likewise deflects away.
As a kid I read Scientific American, and I always felt dumb because I could never really understand what they were talking about. Only later as an adult in going back to some of those articles did I realize that I didn't understand because the article never gave the actual theory of what was going on ... they were too dumbed down, and it was impossible to get the real material from their content. This book, unfortunately, is squarely within that tradition, and while it clearly has interesting content, it is simply too frustrating wading through the packaging to make it enjoyable to this particular reader.