<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Rewarding
Review: A seedy book by a Nobel laureate (I guess I couldn't have avoided this) over which readers often violently divide. The reasons are as follows: for physicists, Weinberg expounds good, but (to them) already known physics (quantum mechanics, chunks of cosmology) overladen with amateurish musings on philosophy and metaphysics (even aesthetics). For lay(wo)men (no pun intended) the book is sometimes heavy going (lots of names, abstract concepts, frequently scholastic dilemmas). On the strong side: I would highly recommend this work to the interested amateur as a historical tour through the elementary particles physics (bits of cosmology added). During this voyage, a reader will become well acquanited with virtually all that matters in contemporary high energy physics. Although not a basic read, it is completely non-mathematical. Just- it requires persistence to absorb and "digest" a multitude of interrelated concepts in this historical narrative on the unfoldment of modern physicist's "worldview". On the weak side: Weinberg's frequent forays into philosophy, theology and politics are not too rewarding, or enlightening (except as an intriguing exposure of modern scientistic mind). Nevertheless: this absorbing story of 20th century physical ideas and controversies leaves one with a good feeling: " That's how modern physics was made and how it casts spell over its inammoratos".
Rating:
Summary: Rewarding
Review: A seedy book by a Nobel laureate (I guess I couldn't have avoided this) over which readers often violently divide. The reasons are as follows: for physicists, Weinberg expounds good, but (to them) already known physics (quantum mechanics, chunks of cosmology) overladen with amateurish musings on philosophy and metaphysics (even aesthetics). For lay(wo)men (no pun intended) the book is sometimes heavy going (lots of names, abstract concepts, frequently scholastic dilemmas). On the strong side: I would highly recommend this work to the interested amateur as a historical tour through the elementary particles physics (bits of cosmology added). During this voyage, a reader will become well acquanited with virtually all that matters in contemporary high energy physics. Although not a basic read, it is completely non-mathematical. Just- it requires persistence to absorb and "digest" a multitude of interrelated concepts in this historical narrative on the unfoldment of modern physicist's "worldview". On the weak side: Weinberg's frequent forays into philosophy, theology and politics are not too rewarding, or enlightening (except as an intriguing exposure of modern scientistic mind). Nevertheless: this absorbing story of 20th century physical ideas and controversies leaves one with a good feeling: " That's how modern physics was made and how it casts spell over its inammoratos".
Rating: 
Summary: Ridiculous discussion of crucial things
Review: As far as the Physics itself is concerned this book seems quite up to the job. After all what else do you expect from a Nobel Prize winner? I enjoyed Weinberg's descriptions of general relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory etc and the importance of symmetry principles in all of these things. But when it came to more philosophical topics such as why mathematics seems to be so well suited describing nature he says little of significance. He just keeps harping on how our sense of "beauty" or whatever guides us to mathematical theories. The discussion is so vague that it would have been better if had stuck to the purely physical questions. I don't think Weinberg addresses philosophical questions very well. I guess that is not surprising since he had one chapter devoted solely to showing that philosophy is mostly useless in the practice of Physics. That may well be true mostly but consider Einstein's theories of relativity. In such cases there is not much difference between Physics and Philosophy. One has to be good at both. Unfortunately Weinberg seriously lacks ability in the latter.
Rating: 
Summary: Cogent objective & informative glimpse towards
Review: Cogent objective & informative glimpse towards "Final Laws"This is a review of both the printed book & the fabulous book on tape. I discovered that the narrated unabridged (7 cassettes) book on tape is available after I read the printed book cover to cover. I quickly bought a copy & have since listened it more times than I can recall! The narrator's voice is pleasant to listen to. His voice come across clear, brisk & very articulate. The whole wonderful experience keeps my attention riveted & gratefully takes my mind off the infamous Southern California traffic during my hours long commute each day. There's always something different & interesting that captivates my attention each time I experience this great book. Keep in mind that I'm a veritable compulsive-obsessive autodidactic with a fanatical drive to understand physical reality at the most fundamental level - call me a PRE (Physical Reality Explorer). I don't have a formal "higher" education or the mathematical tools to speak the technical language - but, like I said, I'm a fanatical layman who's bent on understanding what the hell is REALLY going on "out there" - or "in there" as the case may be...
Well, back to the book! You don't really need a deep understanding of mathematics or even an understanding of Quantum Physics to "get" what this book has to offer. Shoot, for that matter, maybe having an "empty cup" would make the experience of this book all the better! So, what's in the book? Glad you asked! Here's a brief table of contents with a few (parenthetical) comments:
·Preface
·Prologue
·On a Piece of Chalk (great introduction to some basic principles in Atomic Theory)
·Two Cheers for Reductionism ("...I am not an uncompromising reductionist, I'm a compromising reductionist!")
·Quantum Mechanics & Its Discontents
·Tales of Theory & Experiment (this has a nice history & synopsis of QED)
·Beautiful Theories
·Against Philosophy
·Twentieth Century Blues
·The Shape of a Final Theory
·Facing Finality
·What About God? (he admits that he's not a qualified Theologian here)
·Down in Ellis County
·Afterword (this might be titled something else like "...A Year Later...")
The book on tape doesn't have the Preface or the Afterword, but don't let that stop you from getting a copy 'cause you won't miss anything really important in those sections. I liked Weinberg's description of the way the chain of questions "Why?" have arrows of explanation ever convergent towards ubiquitous laws of fundamental physics. It seems analogous to Faraday's lines of force in the fields he described. I see a metaphor here where the "field" of the "arrows of explanation" points in the direction of propagation towards answers to questions about the most fundamental aspects of physical reality. Weinberg's cutting logic & objective appraisal is cogently brought to bear on deep questions such as:
What roles do quantum theories & symmetry principles in physics play in the search for a Final Theory?
Why does each explanation of the way nature works point to other, deeper explanations?
What implications will a final theory have for our philosophy & religious faith?
What would be the role of God in a universe governed by such a theory?
Why are the best theories not only logical but beautiful?
What do physicists mean by a final theory?
What sort of things might such a theory say?
How could we tell it is indeed final?
How close are we to one? As you can see, this book shares a curiosity with the audience. We get keen insight into Weinberg's working philosophy when he describes himself as a "rough & ready realist" & a "compromising reductionist" while he subtly & carefully defends his right to DO physics without being bothered by those fluffy, subjective, & interpretive philosophies which, you get the distinct impression, he'd like to just go away & leave him alone...
Finally, I am compelled to urge you to look at two other works by Weinberg which are actually the same material, just different media. These are a pair of lectures presented by Steven Weinberg & the late great Richard Feynman in the 1986 Memorial Lectures given in honor of the great P.A.M. Dirac. I bought the video, "Towards the Final Laws of Physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lecture" and, to my great joy, found a coupled experience of Weinberg giving a slightly more technical & narrowly focused lecture in VHS video format. The title of the printed book (transcribed from the video taped lectures) is, "Elementary Particles & the Laws of Physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures". These two media really compliment "Dreams of a Final Theory". Bottom line on "Dreams": accessible, cogent, succinct & beautifully written.
...
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, beautiful, but in some ways superficial book
Review: I find this book extremely stimulating and from that perspective this book couldn't be much better. I admire the way the author shared his understanding of theoretical physics with a lay person. Although, the book suffers from some more or less serious imperfections. Maybe the greatest of them is that too many questions are opened and not adequately discussed. By this I don't think of questions that the physics sets itself, but the questions that put the physics in perspective with other aspects of human being. For example, correlation between mathematics and physics is given a great meaning through so called unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, but the author explanation of it was too simple and unprecise. Then philosophy. The chapter Against philosophy is, I think, one big contradiction. The author attacs some philosophical standing-points although he makes it clear that these very standing-points were in some points in time the motor of development of physics. Even the author's work, as explained in the first chapter, is in a way driven by one philosophical standing-point. Also, from the authors elaboration it is obvious that the problem is not a standing-point itself, but rather unreadyness of some physicists to give up on it when a standing-points become ineffective. How come then that some standing-points are good and some are not? I am aware that careful elaboration of all the relevant questions would give too much complexity to the book ment to be popular. And this wouldn't matter if only I haven't got the feeling that most of this questions were brought up and answered in such a way for the reason of convincing us (or somebody more important) in necessity of the SCC project. Not that I think it is not all right to do that, it is just that it unnecessarily burdens this all in all beautiful book.
Rating:
Summary: Perfect
Review: It is really a perfect book. I enjoyed what Weinberg stated about elementary particle physics, reductionism and partly philosophy. In the case of philosophy, I think it's philosophers who are to be blamed not the whole method of intellectual reasoning without emperical evidence. I think his discussion on God is affected by western culture. He knows about religion as a christian. He'd better study more profoundly some other religions, what God is meant by in them, etc.
Rating:
Summary: Readable but not very deep
Review: This is an easy to read but uneven book. Some discussions are pretty clearly exposed, mainly the technical ones. But it's not a balanced view of quantum field theory. E.g.,the author deservedly bashes some philosophers of physics but then puts everybody in the same basket. He keeps hamming in the quest for unification which is a research program with deep philosophical roots. The argument for a "final theory" is not convincing; in fact one wonders if it makes any sense at all. In fact it is not discussed in a critical way. Also, there's no comments about the work of the mathematical physicists concerning the axiomatic or constructive point of view of the theory, which, it seems, is not very encouraging. But, for those who feel that canceling infinities is all right, as long that it works, no problemo...
Rating:
Summary: I like this book
Review: Two chapters stand out to my mind: "Against Philosophy" and "What about God?" Weinberg makes a convincing case that philosophy has made little contribution to objective truth. He also says that he knows of no important scientist in the post-war period who has been substantially influenced by philosophy. One has to be careful here with the word "post-war" because it is well-known that people like Einstein and Heisenberg were very interested in philosophy. As to the chapter on religion, who is better qualified to talk about it than a great physicist like Weinberg who understands the origin of the universe better than almost anybody alive? He makes a forceful case for atheism (though he does not use this term). My only regret is that he doesn't encourage violence against religious fundamentalists and extremists, who are always prepared to use violence to advance their agenda. Incidentally, Weinberg's belief that a final theory is near is too optimistic. Martin Rees has got it right: The advancement of science is like fractals - every little detail can be further enlarged to reveal far more, ad infinitum. Thus, the search for scientifc truth must be endless, and the dreams for a final theory are no more than that.
Rating:
Summary: I like this book
Review: Two chapters stand out to my mind: "Against Philosophy" and "What about God?" Weinberg makes a convincing case that philosophy has made little contribution to objective truth. He also says that he knows of no important scientist in the post-war period who has been substantially influenced by philosophy. One has to be careful here with the word "post-war" because it is well-known that people like Einstein and Heisenberg were very interested in philosophy. As to the chapter on religion, who is better qualified to talk about it than a great physicist like Weinberg who understands the origin of the universe better than almost anybody alive? He makes a forceful case for atheism (though he does not use this term). My only regret is that he doesn't encourage violence against religious fundamentalists and extremists, who are always prepared to use violence to advance their agenda. Incidentally, Weinberg's belief that a final theory is near is too optimistic. Martin Rees has got it right: The advancement of science is like fractals - every little detail can be further enlarged to reveal far more, ad infinitum. Thus, the search for scientifc truth must be endless, and the dreams for a final theory are no more than that.
<< 1 >>
|
