This book made an appearance once i was still in high school and I didn’t take note of it then. It appeared too out-of-date to trouble Later, but in the meantime it’s almost turn into a historical document. Weinberg’s explanations are both comprehensible and remarkably accurate. The book contains no unnecessary clutter, is both well-structured and well crafted, and Weinberg doesn’t restrain along with his opinions, neither on religion nor on philosophy. It’s also the very first time I’ve tried an audio-book. I listened to it while treadmill machine running.
A lot of sweat proceeded to go in to the first chapters. But I quit half through and bought the paperback that i read on the airplane to Austin. Weinberg is one of the folks I interviewed for my book. Lesson learned: Audiobooks aren’t for me personally. I put read this reserve before but wished to remind me of its content. It’s an accumulation of essays on the role of beauty in physics, centered on general relativity and the early 20th century mainly.
Along historical examples like Milne, Eddington, Weyl, and Einstein, Chandrasekhar discusses various areas of beauty, like beauty, simplicity, or harmony. I find it too bad that Chandrasekhar didn’t bring in more of his own opinion but mainly summarizes other people’s thoughts. Lesson discovered: Tell the audience what you think. In this book, mathematician David Orrell argues that beauty isn’t a good guide to truth.
- Streptococcus pyogenes,
- Short grain white rice
- Cutting Brad’s Hair (preferably with the guard on 🙂
- It will enhance the appearance of mature pores and skin
- Get ample sleep… A lot of the body’s repair and rejuvenation occurs when you sleep
It’s an engagingly written reserve which addresses a lot of ground, primarily in physics, from helocentrism to string theory. But Orrell attempts too hard to make everything fit his bad-beauty narrative. “hard” sciences such as physics -have been seen as a a distinctly male feel. For example, feminist psychologists have observed that the traditional picture of the atom as hard, indivisible, impartial, separate, etc corresponds very to the stereotypically masculine sense of self carefully. In conclusion, it’s a nice book, but it’s hard to consider Orrell’s argument seriously.
Or maybe the whole thing was a joke to begin with. Lesson discovered: Don’t try to explain everything. This is a strange book. While reading, I got the impression that the writer is complaining about something constantly, but it didn’t become clear if you ask me what. Lindley tells the story of how physicists discovered increasingly more fundamental and also more unified laws of nature, and how they may be expecting to finally develop a theory of everything. This, so he writes, would be the end of physics. Just that, as he explains in the next phrase, it of course wouldn’t be the finish of physics.
Lindley wants words and loves to use a lot of them. As a result the written publication reads like he wished to cram in the whole background of physics, right from the start to the finish, with him having the last phrase. His discussion for why a theory of everything would stay a “myth” is essentially that it might be hard to check, something that no one can really disagree on.
But “hard to check” doesn’t indicate “impossible to check,lindley and ” is clearly out of his water when it comes to evaluating experimental prospects of, say, probing quantum gravity, so he sticks with superficial polemics. Obviously the written reserve is 20 years old, and I can’t blame the author for being unsure of what’s happened since, but from today’s perspective his rant seems baseless. In summary, it’s a well-written book, but it has a fuzzy message.