5 comments about The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex.

1. The "reductionistic" scientific method, which seeks to reduce phonomena to simpler and more general underlying bludprints, has dominated the last three centuries. It works great in physics, as Newton domonstrated, but less well in other disciplines such as biology and psychology. For example, molecular biologists have isolated DNA, but have yet to adequately explain embroyonic development, protein folding and other riddles. To overcome these shortcomings, many are calling for a theory of complexity, which should focus on systems and the dynamics of development where order appears to organize itself from a bewildering number of interacting factors.
   
   Gell-Mann argues that rather than replacing reductionist methods, complexity theory complements that approach. The quark is the simple and universal, the jaguar the complex. He suggests that between these two exists an unbroken chain.
   
   Gell-Mann attempts to make his contribution with teh "complex adaptive system" that "acquires information about its environment" and indentifies "regularities in that information", which are then condensed into a "schema" or "model"; these latter are "non-static," and unlike a quark can evolve. Each complex adaptive system contains three strands: 1) basic rules; 2) frozen accidents; 3) a selection process. For example, language has genetically inherited cognitive capabilites with certain quirky attributes that persist and yet can change as the individual must describe new phenomena. A lot of the book is devoted to finding and explaining similar examples. It is a panoramic and entertaining excursion through human knowledge, if a bit cursory.
   
   Gell-Mann also hopes to guide scientists into a more holistic and cross-disciplinary approaches. With its focus on historical development and links between the simple and complex, the study of complex adaptive systems, he argues, may be the spur required to stimulate such approaches, briging physics, chemistry, biology and even the social sciences. This is what he is doing at the Santa Fe Institute.
   
   At its best, the book is a window into a great scientific mind, with fascinating mini-essays on state of the art science. Unfortunately, Gell-Mann is an uneven writer. Many passages are impenetrable to lay readers like myself. At a deeper level, he fails to critique the vague research agendas of the complexologists, who have been ridiculously popularised in such enues as Wired. Even the complex adaptive system may say too little about too much. Through it all, Gell-Mann maintains his pose as a total pedant.
   
   REcommended. It is uneven, but this is one of the greatest thinks of the 20C.



2. I might also have entitled my review, "See Carlos Camara's review of April 11, 2002." Camara captures my own thoughts to a tee. Where Gell-Mann is strongest, namely, on particle physics, his strengths shine through. Though hardly a rigorous survey of the field, the second section of Q&J is a compelling introduction to it -- and certainly whets one's appetite for further reading. The book's first section (an overview of the notion of complexity) is decent (though far better popular treatments can be found elsewhere). The book's third and fourth sections, however, are pretty much a total wash. I could tolerate them only insofar as they reflected the obvious integrity of the author. He is a political kindred spirit. That said, having purchased Q&J and had high expectations of it, I was surprised and not a little frustrated at how bereft of substance it was on matters "Jaguarian". More than a little disconnected, I found the second half of Q&J rambling, pedestrian, and even sophomoric. Certainly not what one expects of a Nobel prize winning physicist and of one of the founders of the Santa Fe institute. My respect for Gell-Mann, as a scientist and a humanist, is in no way diminished by Q&J, but I cannot help but feel that he (and his publisher) faltered with this effort. My advice: read the first half of Q&J for a cursory -- but well-written -- survey of complexity and particle physics. Skip the second half altogether.



3. Gell-Mann went to much effort to weave the diverse topics of this book together under the theme of complex adaptive systems. I found this to be a pointless endeavor. A good theme should provide cohesion or make the subject more approachable. Conceiving of both a single-celled organism and a culture as complex adaptive systems, however, provides little insight into the functioning of either and serves mostly to drive home the point that the notion of a complex adaptive system is so broad that nearly anything worth discussing falls under that heading.
   
   Quantum physics is discussed at length. Unfortunately this section reads more like a catalog of concepts and discoveries than like a good introduction conveying key concepts. Other subjects (biology, evolution, ecosystems, computer learning, economics, public policy) are covered too superficially to yield anything of interest.
   
   The major arguments of _The Quark and the Jaguar_ are as follows:
   
   1) Effective complexity is not the same as algorithmic complexity. Algorithmic complexity is 0 for uniform data and highest for completely random data. (Potential) effective complexity is highest in the middle, where patterns and rules (schema) can be derived and minimal for both uniform data and random data.
   
   2) Classical physics implies a deterministic world. How can anything interesting happen? Because quantum physics offers randomness.
   
   3) Complex adaptive systems create schemas to model the data. This is true for the formation of life, to children learning to speak, to scientific progress, etc. Successful complex adaptive systems are solutions to problems. So the biological and cultural diversity on the planet represents a huge amount of valuable information.
   
   4) We should preserve biological and cultural diversity so we don't lose valuable information.



4. Mr. Gell-Mann won a Nobel Prize for his work in physics, but he will never will a Pulitzer for his writing. It's too tedious to endure.
   
   I love reading books about physics. I tried to read this book -- twice. I wanted to like it. But both times, I got no more than a third of the way through, and couldn't force myself to read another word.
   
   Mr. Gell-Mann's writing is too convoluted and dry, his theories so superficially presented. Unless you're a speed reader, I'd imagine there are very few people who would ever waste the time required to force themselves through this very disappointing book.



5. This book gives valuable information on how complex systems arise out of a simple, natural ground. Gell-Mann's theories are useful in understanding chaos theory as well as many branches of quantum physics. A description of Gell-Mann's ecological explorations and efforts to maintain the biosphere is also given. The magician and student of physics will be well rewarded for reading Gell-Mann's work. The processes of consciousness and so magical phenomena may be understood in this light.

5 comments about Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA.

1. Probably the most meticulously researched biography I have ever read. Maddox`s accounts of the personalities, not only of Rosalind, but of all the famed scientists she came into contact with,are breatktaking. And Rosalind,herself,comes across as human and humane besides having a brilliant mind.



2. This is an essential book. I rushed to it after finishing The Double Helix, by James Watson; I was incensed by Watson's misogyny and eager to learn the other side of the story. And this is the main accomplishment of Maddox's book, that it does give the other side of the story in a thorough and detailed manner. Too often, however, Maddox's tone slips into defensiveness, and her feminism appears to be a position she arrived at not as a result of rational thinking but because of her bitterness at the many injustices women have suffered at the hands of men.
   
   I was troubled by this. I admire Rosalind Franklin -- yes, I have to admit that my admiration was nourished to a great extent by Maddox's book -- but I'm put off by how much of her biography of Franklin is a direct, self-righteous and self-justifying response to James Watson's flippant comments in The Double Helix. I was disappointed, for instance, by how much time Maddox spends explaining how sophisticated Franklin's taste in fashion was, simply because Watson made a snide comment in his book about Franklin's clothes and hairdo.
   
   Another problem with Maddox's narrative is its pace. I found the book very hard to get through; paragraph after paragraph plods on, heavy with detail and almost empty of energy. I read The Double Helix in three days, breathless with excitement; for all its flaws, Watson's telling of the story sparkles. I don't look, when I read, to be entertained at the expense of truth, but I don't want either to be given the truth in a dry and awkward way. And Maddox's syntax is often awkward; I found myself going back again and again over her sentences to figure out what she was trying to say.
   
   This material -- the story of Rosalind Franklin's life -- needs a better and more evenhanded writer, one who has nothing to prove and is aware that a biography, no matter how well-intentioned, can, just like the badly-intentioned ones, tell only one side of the story.



3. After reading the book it is clear the scientific community is both collegial and cut throat. In Franklin's case, the lure of honor compels a fellow scientist to use Rosalind's research without giving her the credit she deserved in uncovering the structure of DNA. Maddox provides insight into the not always amicable inner workings of a research lab and the psychology of scientists.
   
   As an elite, Jewish, female Francophile, Franklin was not an easy person to get along with, especially in the lab at King's College London under Dr. Randall. If she had a difficult personality though, she was anything but shy and certainly was not politically naive. She held her own in a male dominated environment and perhaps this is the reason she become known as the Dark Lady. Maddox does her best to give Franklin a balanced appraisal.
   
   Scientists share information and materials through attendance at conferences and in social settings and keeping up with each other's work is expected. But, the use of Rosalind's unpublished material (the crucial photo 51 and experimental data) without her knowledge, to make a breakthrough discovery, is of questionable ethics.
   
   The author presents some insight into the mentality of the scientist. She quotes Albert Einstein, "that a scientist makes science `the pivot of his emotional life, in order to find in this way the peace and security which he cannot find in the whirlpool of personal experience.'"(32). To Rosalind "science and everyday life cannot and should not be separated."(61) Is this why she found it so difficult to explain her work to family and friends? They simply could not understand?
   
   Maddox notes: "it can be argued that scientific discovery is not creativity in the sense that artistic composition is. `Science differs from other realms of human endeavor in that its substance does not derive from the activity of those who practice it'"(213) Therefore it is interesting when an eminent scientist is caught in the trap of his own beliefs and exposed. This occurred when Rosalind corrected the eminent British virologist Norman W. Price. She was right, and had the proof, but he would not accept it, even in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary.



4. One of the more extraordinary things that has happened over the last 20 years or so is the lionization of a woman who until now was almost entirely unheard of in the world at large. Maurice Wilkins too was once almost unheard of, even though he shared the Nobel with Watson and Crick for the discovery/elucidation of the structure of DNA. Rosalind Franklin has now probably leapfrogged Wilkins into being one of the legendary scientists of the 20th century. This is all part of the way the media to a certain extent gets hold of an apparently "good story" and runs with it.
   
   In this excellently written book, Brenda Maddox lays out Rosalind Franklin's short life very well, managing to make what could indeed have been excruitiatingly boring into something that succeeds in holding your attention very well. I knew Maurice Wilkins and some of the other characters in the book, so perhaps I am not the ideal dispassionate observer, but I fully expected to be a little bored by the book. I don't really have anything else to say about the now-famous Photograph 51 which James Watson saw, as no doubt this part of the story will run and run. All I will say is that Maddox points out that Franklin disliked her time at King's and was only too delighted to move to Birkbeck and that DNA was something associated with that group which, to put it simply, she was probably only too happy to leave to others to fight over. Certainly she found a very good research group at Birkbeck and her TMV work, and the results that came from it later after her death, are in the textbooks just like the structure of DNA.
   
   Maddox could have made this into a martyr's story but she succeeds very well in pointing out the iniquities of patriachy in the science of the time, without making Franklin into a victim, because, as she shows, Franklin would no doubt not have seen it this way. In fact Franklin comes over as "difficult" to many (mainly UK) scientists, but to foreigners often delightful. Maddox suggests this has something to do with her Jewishness, which is quite plausible, but I think also is not an uncommon trait among many Britons who share Dr. Johnson's view that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", producing a nostalgia and yearning for a people and culture that are not your own.
   
   In the end my main feeling engendered by reading the book was of sadness -for her early death, but also because she seemed to find it difficult to get along with many people and hence experienced more than her share of unhappiness and difficulties in her personal and professional life.
   
   As so often with scientific biographies I wish there had been more science in the book. It is very difficult for us today to appreciate the problem of finding the structure of DNA and what exactly were the thought processes behind getting the double helix. This is something that Watson's book succeeds in brilliantly despite its flaws. Certainly Watson (almost as usual) comes off poorly when you consider that he wrote unflattering things about Franklin after he had been her friend for the last few years of her life (or at least a good colleague) and knew that what he was writing was unfair. Who knows what he thought about the other protagonists but was constrained to reign in his thoughts as they were still alive, unlike Franklin who was no longer around to fight back?
   
   I have to say I am one of those who laments the hold the Nobel Prizes have on the public's imagination. Science is a collective enterprise and prize giving is often unfair, wrong or misleading.



5. Women in science and mathematics often are ignored. Rosalind Franklin, who should have won a Nobel Prize, has her story told very carefully in this excellent, well-written book, which is a pleasure to read.

5 comments about Euler: The Master of Us All (Dolciani Mathematical Expositions, No 22) (Dolciani Mathematical Expositions).

1. " Analysis incarnate " , no other more suitable words probably can describe the incomparable power of Euler, as his contemparies called him. Concerning the usual style of Dunham to write this stimulating book, other readers have made many comments and I think there is no need to repeat that. What I want is that Dunham to write another book, perhaps volume 2,3 etc and also write a thorough biography of Euler, one the greatest mathematicians in the history. ( To me, for mathematical ability, his should be at the same rank with Newton, Archaemedes, and Gauss, even Einstein concerning the mathematical and theroetical aspect, is below par compared with Euler )



2. With the publication of this, his third book, Dunham has once more shown himself to be a master himself of mathematical explanation. Unlike his previous two books, The Mathematical Universe and Journey Through Genius, which covered results by a variety of mathematicians, this book focuses on selected results that sprang from the remarkable mind of Leonard Euler, one of the most prolific and important mathematicians of all time. What sets Euler apart is not only the vast quantity of his output (the publication of his collected works, the Opera Omnia, spans six dozen volumes, or over 25,000 pages in all!), but also the breadth and originality of his work. Not only did Euler contribute to a wide array of mathematical fields -- from number theory to complex analysis to geometry -- but in many cases, he was the founder of those fields. For example, Euler invented the field of analytical number theory, and he was the first mathematician to recognize the importance of and to discover the important properties of complex numbers.

   This book in many ways resembles Dunham's Journey Through Genius. As in that book, Dunham has selected 15 or so theorems to present in detail, and he makes an effort to keep the proofs similar in spirit to the original proofs. Although the proofs are complete and the book is full of equations, they are accessible to anyone with a high school level of mathematics education. But in addition to the proofs, Dunham also provides historical context, as well as commentary on how later mathematicians used and improved upon Euler's work. For example, we learn that Euler began to loose the sight in his right eye at the age of 32, and that despite his virtual blindness by the age of 65, he continued his prolific rate of output until his death at age 84.

   The book's title is taken from a quote by Laplace, who said, ``Read Euler, read Euler. He is the master of us all.'' Indeed, if you have any interest in mathematics, you will almost certainly find yourself in complete agreement with Laplace's sentiments by the time you finish reading this wonderful book. ...




3. I really enjoyed reading this book that describes some background on Euler and his work. It is written in an informal style, so for people with a math background it reads like a novel.

   The book is not suitable for people who want to learn more about the person Euler, but do not have a math background, because 75% of the book is about real math (equations). So if you don't enjoy reading equations, do not buy the book.

   Summary: as enjoyable as the other Dunham books, although a bit more expensive (but still worth the money).




4. Once again, the Ivy League establishment has got it all wrong. They continue to perpetrate error in the historical record just as they do in the scientific record with that preposterous theory of evolution.
   
   First of all, Euler should not be credited with topology. Descartes had formulated, before Euler was born, the key topological equation F + V - E = 2.
   
   The Greeks attached mystical significance to the five platonic solids. So much so, Euclid included the five regular solids in book 13 of his Elements as if it were the culimination of his work, as if the three-dimensionality were a culimination of the two-dimensionality of the earlier books.
   
   These "regular" solids are three-dimensional objects: namely, the Tetrahedron, the cube, the octahedron, the dodecahedron and the icosahedron. They are "regular" because, on each, the faces are congruent. Furthermore, the face angles are equal. For example, a cube's faces are all the same size.
   
   If we count the faces on the tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron respectively, we get 4, 6, 8, 12, 20 respectively.
   
   If we count the vertices of each respectively, we get 4, 8, 6, 20, 12.
   
   If we count the edges respectivley, we get 6, 12, 12, 30, 30.
   
   Now, create an array of the faces, vertices and edges:
   
   F:4 6 8 12 20
   V:4 8 6 20 12
   E:6 12 12 30 30
   
   Descartes noticed that F + V - E = 2. For example, 4 + 4 - 6 = 2. Or take the second column: 6 + 8 - 12 = 2. Descartes conjectured (as we all would) that this formula represents an invariant amongst all polyhedra.
   
   Descartes died in 1650 A.D. when he was poisoned by some jealous Swede. Euler was born in 1707 A.D., some time after Descartes's death. Liebnitz had translated this work of Descartes which shows F + V - E = 2. And Euler is known to have read all of these Liebnitz manuscripts at the Hanover archives.
   
   Why scholars persist in giving Euler credit for this equation boggles my imaginatino unless their reading is limited. If it is limited, then appellation of scholar for such men is unwarranted.
   
   Pictures of the five platonic regular solids can be seen in Daud Sutton's little book "Platonic and Archimedian Solids."



5. Don't be fooled by the brevity or put off by the high price of this book - it's worth its weight in gold. If you have a university level math degree and you want to do proofs again, this book is for you. I have been able to understand everything in the book as a result of Prof. Dunham's amazing ability to explain things. I did have to resort to the Internet on occasion to brush up on some trigonometry and calculus. I have been reading it slowly for 2 years now and I'm only half way through - sometimes I pull it out when I need some brain exercise. If you like math, you will like this book.

5 comments about Deke!: An Autobiography.

1. The best insiders book about the early astronaut office. It has so much good stuff about which astronaut was assigned what duties and a good behind the scenes view of each spaceflight. There are also good stories about some of the lesser known astronauts who never flew in space. A great book!



2. There is no question about it, Deke Slayton was one of the people
   most responsible for the amazing success of the American Space
   Program in the 1960's. As Director of Flight Crew Operations, he
   chose the astronaut crews that flew the missions. When looking
   back at the flights, there is no question that Slayton knew
   who to put where in order to get the job done. However, to this
   day, there are still a lot of questions in the air which Slayton
   did not really address in his otherwise outstanding book. For example, in
   Andrew Chaikin's book "A Man On the Moon", or Apollo 7 astronaut
   Walt Cunningham's book, many astronauts say that they never got
   a handle on how Slayton made his choices. Astronauts, particularly those chosen
   in later groups, even though they were fine pilots, highly educated
   and hard workers, would seemingly be passed over for flights by more veteran
   astronauts that didn't seem to be as well qualified. This was
   due to what Cunningham called "the pecking order" and a prime
   qualification of that pecking order was to be a personal pal of Slayton's.
   One example of this was Slayton's choice of Alan Shepard to be commander
   of Apollo 13, later switched to 14, even though Shepard had only his single 15-minute Mercury flight 10 years earlier (Shepard had been grounded due to an inner-ear problem). Many thought that Shepard
   should be required to do duty on a back-up crew prior to his being
   given command, and that otherwise he would have a lot of problems getting
   up to speed with the complex Apollo and Lunar Module (LM) spacecraft. In the end, Shepard did a fine job piloting the LM to a pinpoint touchdown in the Fra Mauro region of the Moon, but he, like many of the original Mercury astronauts, had little interest in the scientific aspects of space exploration, and as a result, the scientific yield of the mission was very disappointing. Another example was Gene Cernan who was chosen to command the final Apollo 17 mission in spite of reservations from important people in the program like Jim McDivitt, former astronaut and later head of the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office. Cernan crashed his helicopter while he was ogling sunbathing girls. Something like this is usually unforgiveable, but Slayton covered up for him.
   Slayton does not really clarify questions like these. He states that he originally chose the crew of Grissom, Eisele and Chaffee to fly the first Apollo mission (Eisele was replaced by Ed White-and it was they who perished in the Apollo 1 fire). Slayton states directly that since there would be no rendezvous and docking with a LM in this mission, it wouldn't be as difficult as later ones so he could use astronauts who were "weaker". He does not explain why he felt they were weaker.
   Slayton also states that he was prepared for scientist-astronaut Harrison Schmitt (the only professional geologist to qualify as an astronaut) to fly as LM Pilot in Apollo 18 (giving him a chance to walk on the Moon), but he strongly objected to moving him up to fly Apollo 17 after it became clear that Apollo 17 would be the last mission. In the end, he capitulated to the political pressure from the scientific community and Congress, but it is hard for me to see why someone qualified for Apollo 18 should not fly Apollo 17 if he was able to handle the LM Pilot duties in addition to the scientific work he was best qualified to handle.
   
   In summary, this is a very good book with a lot of information, and it is clear that Slayton knew what he was doing, but he doesn't really
   clarify how he ultimately evaluated the abilities of the astronauts who worked for him which would have really made the book that much more interesting.



3. The book arrived within the scheduled delivery time in excellent condition.
   
   Thank you,
   
   Mark & Francine Keehnel



4. If you want to know how the first person to set foot on the moon was chosen, or any of the other why's that were previously unknown and hidden to outside knowledge, then this is the book that you'll want to read.
   
   Deke Slayton was an astronaut himself with one of the most fascinating personal stories (which we learn in this book). But he was also deeply involved, perhaps more than anyone, in choosing who flew and on which flights.
   
   Before Slayton died at a relatively young age, his name was added to a book called "Moon Shot," which was shallow and disappointing. The stories I knew he must have were not in there. With his death, I assumed that we'd lost any opportunity to know how the astronaut selection process had worked, something which had decided which spacefarer would be a name to be remembered for all time in the history books, and who would be obscure, even forgotten.
   
   But then I found that he hadn't written "Moonshot" - he'd actually been working on this second, much better, much deeper book. And here are all the stories. For the first time, we learned how some of the most historic and momentous decisions were made. It makes for fascinating reading, and I am thankful that Slayton took the time to get it all down on paper before he passed away.
   
   Possibly the best recommendation for this book is that many astronauts have commented that they did not know why they had been picked for certain flights (or passed over) until, decades after retirement, they read this book.
   
   An essential read for anyone with the slightest interest in some of the most important historical events of our age.



5. I would have to say that this book, more than any other, is one I have read and referred to many times over. Covering the most astonishing era of science and exploration in our history, this is the story of the man who was not only a superb pilot and astronaut, but as their influential superior forged the careers of others, by determining who would crew crucial missions. It might have been a difficult thing to have said to Deke's face, but if he hadn't been grounded with a minor heart aliment in the early 1960s, he might only be remembered today as a fellow who flew the Delta 7 Mercury mission after John Glenn's unforgettable flight, and perhaps another one or two missions. But he was forced into taking the responsible position of Chief Astronaut, and in doing so became the perfect person for the job, and today we celebrate that accidental irony. Of course he finally got to make a space flight in 1975, so his NASA astronaut career had a happy ending after all.
   
   Deke knew all of the other astronauts well, and understood better than most who would form the most compatible and best-performing crews for a particular flight. Put two guys together in a VW bug-sized spacecraft and whirl them around the world with little to do for two weeks and see them want to kill each other by mission's end. But that didn't happen on Deke's watch - he matched people and personalities perfectly, and the crux of this, his legacy, are the many highly successful space missions that operated under his pragmatic management.
   
   It is a cracking good book as well, and Michael Cassutt managed to get the most he could from a gravely ill Deke Slayton, who sadly passed away before this book could be published. On behalf of all spaceflight enthusiasts and historians, however, thanks heavens for Michael's foresight in conceiving and carrying through with this book; for without it a veritable raft of questions about the space program and the astronauts will forever have remained unanswered. It is certainly a definitive and reliable source of information for me, and I am delighted that the story of a great man has been so eloquently and thoroughly told.

5 comments about The Los Alamos Primer: The First Lectures on How To Build an Atomic Bomb.

1. - for anyone seriously interested in our nuclear heritage, weaponeering, or the NWEPS program. Gives INCREDIBLE insight as to the minds and directions these young physicists were going.

   This book is a must-read. Simple, concise, straightforward technically. You gotta read it, 'nuff said.




2. Excellent book, it takes a bit to stick with it, but the modern day excerpts/perspectives threaded into the book give it a good historical perspective. This is a good combo to go together with Richard Rhodes "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" and "Dark Sun".



3. This is a truly exciting book for people with the desire to understand bomb physics. This book consists out of the original lecture notes from a series of seminars given in 1943 to the bomb scientists at the start of the Manhattan Project. These lecture notes are clearly annotated so that a layman can understand the bomb. Although the book discusses mainly the knowledge of 1943, the clear annotations of the author comments also on the advances since 1943.

   In this book you will learn to calculate the energy of an atomic bomb after already 5 pages using only one simple physical law (no, not Einstein!). When you are halfway in the book, you will understand the calculations of the critical mass.

   However to fully appreciate the book, you need to have a basic understanding of mathematics and physics. (it would be nice if you know what a differential equation is.)

   The book also contains several funny anekdotes which make it a truly astonishing reading.




4. IANAP (I Am Not A Physicist), but the son of one who worked in Los Alamos some time after WWII ... definitely recommend this for those not intimidated by some equations. There's lots here without the match, and the more of it you can appreciate the more the insights. Serber's comments add a lot of perspective.



5. This book gives a brief and highly technical summary of what was known about nuclear fission in 1942 and how to go about turning this knowledge into a "practical weapon". Great fun to read if you have an engineering or physics degree or similar background knowledge. The author has extensively annotated and updated the terse original lecture notes that were given to new arrivals at Los Alamos. Interestingly, the annotations now take up more space that the original notes. These annotations may help to make the subject accessible to a non-technical audience as they provide invaluable historical and technical background. Invaluable for anyone interested in science history and/or the Manhattan Project.

5 comments about Men of Science Men of God: Great Scientists of the Past Who Believed the Bible.

1. This is a good book if you want "just the facts". If you're searching for intimate details about the lives of these scientists or discussions about parallel universes, then this isn't the reading selection. Yes, written from a decidedly christian viewpoint ...so, what's the problem? If you are afraid or refuse to give God credit for creating the universe, then, again, this is not the selection for you. I like this author and publisher because we can present God and science to our children and not treat them as mutually exclusive.



2. This book, written by Henry Morris and Chuckie Darwin, gives new perspective of creationism. The science of intelligent design shows the blueprint used by an "intelligent designer" to create the universe. Periodically, the creatures designed, both evolved and changed. Monkey may or may not have evolved into man. But various creatures have changed as God planned they would. God can make these plans, because ... well, ... He is God!



3. Some qualifications for opining to start. I have read this book and I am a public school teacher with 9 years of teaching elementary school. I have a BA in Psychology and a M Ed.
   
   This is a great little book. It is important that we understand the beliefs of the scientists as well as their backgrounds. Contrary to popular opinion, scientists aren't devoid of beliefs and everyone's beliefs influence their perspectives. This can be readily seen by perusing these reviews. Our beliefs also determine our actions which makes being certain of their veracity all the more important as they will dictate the course of our lives and our destiny.
   
   These scientists stand head and shoulders above many of their peers. It is important for all of us to understand what they believed and why they chose those beliefs.
   
   I highly recommend this book and I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did, and do every time I read it. It is a short, interesting, and fun read. Bon appetit!



4. Wonderful, fascinating, little-known information lies in this book! Evolutionists would have society think religion (and Christianity specifically) has only ever hindered science, yet this book shows that the best founders of our modern scientific disciplines were motivated to explore the world explicitly because of their faith in God.
   
   These men were not Christian out of the cultural norms of their respective societies, these men sincerely had a zealous faith that far exceeded their peers in their day.
   
   This books forever terminates the image of anti-scientific, Christian knuckle-draggers; a must-read.



5. The late Henry Morris, a creationist with no background in biology or history (his degree is in hydraulic engineering), levels false implications of evolution with evils (or Morris's preceived evils). This book is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on the science of evolutionary biology using long dead mens' faith as some kind of attempt to place Christianity on a pedestal (funny how he didn't get into other faiths, as if science cares if someone is Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or what have you). The bulk of it is something a middle school student could have done as a report; as for accuracy I would suggest reading biographies by actual historians. Someone who is willing to lie about evolution (e.g., Henry Morris) should not be taken seriously in any scholarly field that he is not formally trained in.

5 comments about Madame Curie: A Biography.

1. The book is a reprint of the biography written by Marie Curie's daughter, Eve Curie in 1937. It is a book which should be read by all - especially aspiring scientists. Marie Curie was the first woman to receive a Ph.D. in France, the first woman to receive a Nobel Prize and the first person to receive two Nobel prizes. The work she accomplished under the most difficult situations for a scientist is truly inspiring. When asked why she and her husband, Pierre Curie did not patent the procedure for extraction and purification of radium, something which would have made them very wealthy, she said "No, It would be contrary to the scientific spirit." How refreshing, since in today's world the first thought of scientists is patenting their discoveries.



2. Madame Curie is a touching and honest biography. It tells the perserving story of Marie Curie, a native Pole who would seem out of place in France and--being a woman in a more prejudice timeframe--in the scientific community in general. Although this was the case, it did not stop her from becoming one of the most prolific and important scientists in the realm of physics and chemistry.

   Within this book is held the tale of a woman who worked almost every single minute of her life in either the laboratory, the classroom, or her own home. But she never faltered under pressure and endured inhospitable laboratory conditions (she was originally working in a shed to help discover radium, the element that created the field of radiation cancer treatment and spurred the field of nuclear science.

   As a biographer, Eve Curie remains factual in content, allowing the reader to form an unbiased opinion of her mother. She buttresses the book with personally letters to and from Marie Curie, which add a first hand account of certain aspects of her mother's life.

   A must read for anyone looking for a heartwarming story.




3. I say that for a biography was pretty good. There was a few boring parts that made me want to put the book. I wouldn't have read this book for pleasure. I had to read it for a physics project. I gave the book 3 stars because I did not necessary enjoy this because it was for school.



4. This is one of the books that will remain closest to me...the kind of book I would definitely have on my own children's bookshelf. I unfortunately had to stop reading the book midway because the library wanted it back, and I was also going to be out of town. Three months later, I still felt compelled to go back to the library and finish off the remaining two or three chapters.
   
   The book is a detailed account of Marie Curie's personal and professional life. And who better to tell this story than Eve, her own daughter. The genius in Mme. Curie was a direct result of her dedication to hard work and an amazing work ethic. From a peasant Polish family, she faced many challenges and postponed her own education and worked for a wealthy family to help pay for her older sister's education. Such was Marie's spirit and selflessness - which extended to her research and her work in science.
   
   Her creation, radium, was the ultimate criminal that led to her untimely death, when she felt she still had a lot to accomplish. The lady was indeed a noble gift to the science world.



5. This book should be on every Mother's list of gifts for her daughter. What a beautiful portrait of a mother by her daughter. In this age of "feminism" this should also be a must read for women in general. Madame Curie was in a class of intellectual genius by herself. She is one of the most outstanding woman scientists ever - and she was Polish!
   She is a great example as a human being, a woman, a mother, a "Polack", a scientist, a wife. Needless to say I was very impressed by the book. The thought that this was written so beautifully by this woman's daughter never left my awareness. This book certainly made this half-Polack extremely proud of his heritage.

5 comments about Men of Mathematics (Touchstone Book).

1. Bell's book has been an inspiration to several generations of mathematicians, encouraging them to pursue the creative discipline of mathematics. For that, he has done a great service to mathematics.
   
   Unfortunately, that is the only good thing I can say about this book. E.T. Bell was a respected Caltech mathematician, who dabbled in writing books about mathematical history. He was a great writer with style, which has led many to believe he was also an eminent scholar of history of mathematics. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Bell manages to perpetrate fiction in almost every other line, mangling known facts, making unwarranted judgments and characterizations of personalities and motives. Whatever he needs to do to construct an entertaining story, he does. His name is universally cursed by historians of mathematicians.
   
   Making up stuff for a good story might not ordinarily be bad. After all, a lot of people do it, and certainly encouraging youngsters to study mathematics is not a bad goal. But there are several ways in which this book is insidious. One is the negative potrayal of women mathematicians. As the astute reader will have noted, the title is *Men* of Mathematics. (On my paperpack edition, the word "men" is even set off by a different color than the rest of the title!) The forgiving reader may be willing to forgive this; after all, the book was written in less politically correct times, and certainly most of the famous and well-documented mathematicians are men. Gauss? A man. Euler? A man also. Etc. On the other hand, there are notable examples of great mathematicians who happened to be women. Emmy Noether and Sonja Kowalewski, for example. Women who are mentioned in Bell's book, but are either paid little attention to or treated rather badly, in a way that clearly highlights Bell's own prejudices. Some readers will be struck by sentences like "Sonja's sex had got the better of her ambitions and she had been living happily with her husband." Rather than list more examples, let me stop by adding that this kind of sentence is typical of Bell, and doesn't stand out much. What is perhaps the most revealing is that Chapter 22, "Master and Pupil", which is about Weierstrass and Kowalewski, spends undue amount of time discussing Kowalewski's sexual attributes and their effect on her mathematical colleagues and teachers, and little explaining her contributions to mathematics.
   
   Bell also shows prejudice when he explains that the dispute between Cantor and Kronecker was due, in part, because:
   
   "Rightly or wrongly, Cantor blamed Kronecker for his failure to obtain the coveted position at Berlin. The aggressive clannishness of Jews has often been remarked, sometimes as an argument against employing them in academic work, but it has not been so generally observed that there is no more vicious academic hatred than that of one Jew for another when they disagree on purely scientific matters or when one is jealous or afraid of another. Gentiles either laugh these hatreds off or go at them in an efficient, underhand way which often enables them to accomplish their spiteful ends under the guise of sincere friendship. When two intellectual Jews fall out they disagree all over, throw reserve to the dogs, and do everything in their power to cut one anothers' throats or stab one another in the back."
   
   This quote was later modified (I think it might have been after Bell's death) to be about styles of academic infighting, rather than a commentary about Jews and Gentiles.
   
   Bell typically exaggerates or just plain makes things up in order to make for a better story, but I think such a false potrayal of mathematicians cannot be good. The chapter on Galois, the most famous part of the book, is replete with historical errors and omissions, including rearranging order of events, leaving out the less savory aspects of Galois' personality, and basically saying Galois invented Galois theory the night before the duel, even though parts of his work were published and known by that time to other mathematicians.
   
   Bell consistently paints Galois as misunderstood and his older mathematical colleagues as buffoons. This is a seductive thought to some, but the reality is that great mathematical ideas don't have to be suppressed in order to be dormant. Truly great ideas can sometimes take years to sink in. Not a romantic viewpoint perhaps, but I think Galois' greatness is enhanced, not diminished, by this realization. (Of course, Galois's inability/unwillingness to better communicate his ideas didn't help!)
   
   This book is certainly inspirational for some, but especially for today's audience, I think it'll be glaringly biased and I doubt very inspiring for young girls in particular. The worst thing you can do is give this book to your child to read. There have been many books since then that are more accurate and less prejudiced in flavor.



2. Apart from the glaring historical inaccuracies (mathematically speaking) with which E. T. Bell embellished his book, I must say that I found the pervasive anti-Christian sarcasm to be very offensive and tiresome. E. T. Bell seems to reserve a special disliking for Blaise Pascal and Augustin-Louis Cauchy... Pascal is made out to be a mentally ill religious lunatic and Cauchy to be an eccentric and bigoted religious fanatic. Bell sacrifices truth on the altar of propaganda especially in the section on Evariste Galois - here he takes particular pains to portay the great mathematician Cauchy to be a fool and a religious bigot while Galois (a very unstable, self-destructive character if there ever was one) is made out to be the martyred hero!



3. My family has produced several mathematicians, but I am not one of them. However, this book is extremely interesting- just do as I did and skim right over the math.



4. From page 86 of the Touchstone edition: "The PENSEES and the PROVICINCIAL LETTERS, apart from their literary excellences, appeal principally to a type of mind that is rapidly becoming extinct." Even though I am here reading that my mind is rapidly becoming extinct, I still got a huge kick out of Bell's literary caricature of Pascal. Bell treats Pascal and his proponents with a kind of highlander tough love: giving us a dose of what bootcamp with kilts is probably like. lol. So anyway, I don't find Bell's writing in his literary portrait of Pascal at all anti-Christian. On the contrary, I find Bell a breath of fresh air. He obviously far more than means well. For he provides a more or less impartial commentary on Pascal in his curmudgeonly, jocular, celtic way.



5. Its a very good book on review of mathematics. It deals with evolution of mathematics as a whole. It is definitely not for general public.

5 comments about The Coalwood Way.

1. A story told first time can be fasicnating. As Rocket Boys was. The same story told second time is just boring. The first one had a backbone: boys trying to achieve the goal despite the circumstances. The second one - ranomly selected stories about this or that - I simply don't care. Meaningless and boring



2. I'm not sure where the below reviewers are coming from. The Coalwood Way, although including the Rocket Boys, is very much different from the first memoir. And it is not a bunch of disconnected stories, not at all! The Coalwood Way opens with Sonny Hickam in a strange depression a year after the death of his grandfather who had lost his legs in the coal mine. It is a depression he struggles with throughout the book and is the core thread. How he determines what is causing that depression really fills out a part of the original memoir that was left out and provides us with insight as to how he ultimately succeeds. Hickam reveals how that last winter in Coalwood so much is happening to him and his friends. His rockets are starting to work, but nothing else does. He even lets Chipper, his mom's beloved squirrel, escape into the winter cold and snow. He also meets Dreama, a young woman also struggling, and wanting Sonny to be her friend. Dreama is considered something like white trash, and is living with one of the most detestable men in town. Sonny also falls for Ginger who dreams of being a professional singer and provides an interesting counterpoint to the coal miners' sons of Coalwood with their dreams of spaceflight. "Dad," or Homer, Sr. is also struggling, trying to open a part of the mine that has defeated previous mine superintendents but upon which the future of Coalwood depends. "Mom," or Elsie, struggles with her failure to win the annual Veteran's Day parade (Coalwood's float has always won before), as well as her continuing attempts to get Homer, Sr. to quit the mine before black lung kills him. Elsie also identifies very much with Dreama and wants to help her but is held back by the "Coalwood way". The story is told with Hickam's tradmark humor and there are as many laugh out loud moments as tears. The dramatic arc of these threads to the story all join in a night of murder and mayhem when Coalwood is also buried in a huge snowstorm and cut off from the rest of the world. This is followed by another night of hope and amazing redemption on Christmas Eve that will cause even the hardest heart to melt. In many ways, this is Hickam's Coalwood Christmas story and it's a great one. You will love it.



3. "The Coalwood Way" is the part 2 contiuation of the "Rocket Boys", AKA:"October Sky". I just really like the way Mr. Hickam tells his story in his books. I find them to be "Americana" like- a success story from a humble start. I think the series could be a must read for middle and high school students as a way to see their potential in their own future and not just the here and now. A great book (and series) to read!



4. Dr. Werner von Braun once said, "Matters of faith are not really accessible to our rational thinking. I find it best not to ask any questions, but to just believe..." These words are truly conveyed throughout the second of Homer Hickam Jr.'s memoirs, The Coalwood Way, originally published in 2000. Although following his acclaimed, Rocket Boys, this compelling story does not continue where the last left off. Portions of the memoir take place during the same time period as the last, however, this tome portrays the life of Homer "Sonny" Hickam in a different light. This particular memoir focuses on Sonny's senior year in high school and the hardships he must go through when growing up. In addition to working diligently on creating improved rockets, Sonny must focus on achieving A's in school. Most importantly, he must focus on his family. In 1959 Coalwood, West Virginia is a ticking bomb and as it becomes more and more difficult to keep the mines running, the bomb seems to always be the verge of exploding leaving the people out of jobs, homes and, even worse, their town. Sonny must now try to keep his family together while the town falls apart and yet keep alive the dream of leaving in order to join his role model, Dr. Werner von Braun, at Cape Canaveral.
   Sonny Hickam is on his way to fulfilling his dreams as the book begins. However there a few obstacles on the way. Troubles in his family prevent Sonny from leading an easy, carefree life. His mother, Elsie, is growing increasingly impatient with Sonny's father. Sonny's father, Homer, is the mine superintendent and with the opening of a dangerous new mine, 11 East; ultimately, he is home even less often than usual. The strain on the marriage becomes too much for Sonny's mother and she insists on leaving Coalwood to escape to Myrtle Beach in order to sell real estate. In addition to his domestic hardships, Sonny is having troubles with himself. Every so often, although only lasting a few minutes, Sonny will find himself engulfed in an unexplainable grief. This mystery baffles Sonny day after day. As he searches for the origin of this mystery grief, he learns more than he ever imagined. Sonny's emotions and adventures are vividly depicted through a truly sentimental story, splashed with humor in all the right places. The writing style of Homer Hickam in this memoir is once again captivating and absolutely unforgettable.
   Although one may think memoirs aren't written well due to the lack of an experienced writer, The Coalwood Way reads like an old time fable. It is written in such a way that you are taken from your own world and thrown into the small town in West Virginia. Hickam depicts Coalwood in such a way that the image of every part of the quaint town is etched into your mind. His method of writing will bring you to tears when tragedy strikes and laughter when Sonny finds himself in a humorous predicament.
   This memoir is all about finding yourself and realizing that whenever life trips you up, someone will always be there to catch you when you fall. Throughout this lucid story, Sonny tries to find himself, and while looking down on his beloved town, he finally realizes the answer to what he's being puzzling all along. He understands his feelings, thinking: "My parents, and all the people of Coalwood, had given me the only true gifts they could ever give, that of their wisdom, and of their dreams, and of their love. All fear, sadness, and anger inside me had vanished. I knew who I was and where I came from and who my people were. I was ready to leave because I could never leave." Once Sonny realizes he can let go of the past, he is able to finally leave his hometown with the closure he needs to succeed.



5. Another excellent book by Homer Hickam, If you don't read the trilogy you're missing a true West Virginia experience

5 comments about Feynman's Rainbow: A Search for Beauty in Physics and in Life.

1. Written by a physicist who spent a year in an office on the same floor as Feynman and Murray Gell-Man, this book provides yet another view of Feynman and the love-hate relationship that existed between him and Gell-Man, two of the finest physicists of the 20th Century. It is interesting to compare this view with the one provided by the letters collected by his daughter, Michelle, Perfectly Reasonable Deviations From The Beaten Track: The Letters Of Richard P. Feynman and the excellent, but hard to find, collection of essays written by other peers."Most of the Good Stuff:" Memories of Richard Feynman.



2. EXCELLENT!!! Gives the layman a look inside the world of Physics research, while presenting a life-lesson theme that transcends science. A great read for both science and non-science readers. I'm a Physics teacher, and the reason I love this book has absolutely NOTHING to do with science. I'm making it required reading for my Physics classes!!



3. The book jacket made me worry that the book was going to be a namby pamby "Tuesdays With Morrie" affair :-) because the jacket said something about "a young physicist [author Mlodinow] trying to find his place in the world, and .. the famous, old, and dying colleague whose wisdom helped him". Luckily, "Feynman's Rainbow" turns out to be more fun and light and memorable and show-don't-tell than the Morrie book, although there is a slight resemblance.
   
   The best feature of the book is that it lets the reader feel what it's like for an "ordinary" person to be around greatness and around history. There are plenty of serious books about the giants, and they might even include a few quotes from neighbors or secretaries about the giants, but this book actually lets the reader *feel* what it's like to live with the great, day after day, in an interesting Rosencrantz-and-Guildenstern way as described below in (1). In that sense, the fact that the book is actually about the author and only peripherally about Feynman is part of it's charm. So, the main character's (author's) "I'm finding myself" phase of life is slightly tedious in the book, true, but the tedium actually works to give a being-there/slice-of-life appeal, and I wouldn't complain about it. For example, the slumping main character's (author's) slight confusedness and whininess makes a context that allows Feynman to be impatient with him in (a more gentle version of) Don-Corleone's ", what's the matter with you?" way.
   
   (1) My favorite parts of the book are actually the stuff in the background of the book's story--e.g., backdrop stuff like the sad-sack string-theory nutjob (!) Schwarz who was pitied and ridiculed by everyone (even grad students) at Caltech and who was allowed to remain on the faculty (but with no tenure) only due to the support of his single high-profile supporter in the Physics faculty. Such backdrop parts of the book have a lovely Rosencrantz & Guildenstern feel to them because they invert the usual ordering of the big picture (e.g., string theory) and the little picture (Mlodinow's mundane concerns). Stephen Wolfram also makes a cameo. Such backdrop parts may be especially enjoyable to readers who have some existing knowledge of physics. (Physics = Hamlet, in the analogy.)
   
   (2) Other great not-quite-foreground parts of the book involve Feynman, of course, and/or Murray Gell-Mann. Feynman is familiar to most readers. But what an interesting guy is Gell-Mann! The book made me want to read his books and biography next. His relationship with Feynman is so awesome and is discussed at various points in the book. The single-sentence (or so) description of how Gell-Mann and Feynman spent their time together in Feynman's last months is very touching, like something out of a movie. A great, great movie or book can be made on the yin and yang and the relationship between these two guys. [Maybe one has already been made; I don't know.] The relationship in the hypothetical movie would resemble that portrayed between Salieri and Mozart in the movie "Amadeus", but with Salieri's being just as much of a genius (but of an opposite type) as Mozart, and with Salieri's being mostly not evil. Pitch to the studios: "'Grumpy Old Men', starring Amadeus and a genius version of Salieri". :-)
   
   (3) And what makes the book work, that can keep things light, are the goofy little anecdotes. Not knee-slappingly funny or anything, but nice. Here's an example. Feynman and the author, both hungry and casually-dressed, see a wedding reception at Caltech's Athenaeum and crash in to get fed. When asked whether they are from the bride's side or the groom's side, Feynman replies, "We represent the Physics Department". Ha ha. By the way, the quote evinces a great, jaunty attitude and therefore is a good slogan for life (that anyone can adopt, with appropriate substitution for "Physics Department").
   
   Finally, let's note that the book is breezily good but should not be read with high expectations because it is not and does not try to be the "great" type of book.



4. Mlodinow's book is more about himself than about Feynman, whom he admits he hardly knew. There are no insights here into Feynman's character, or his personality, or the incredible story of his marriage to Arline. Nope, this book is mostly the author boasting about graduating early, writing a well-respected thesis, and being expected to excel. It should have been called "Mlodinow's Rainbow" but I guess that wouldn't have sold as many copies, would it?
   
   Don't get me wrong. The book is entertaining enough, and short enough (171 pages of large type) to be quickly devoured in a single sitting. Just don't expect there to be anything of substance about the name in the title, which is obviously a marketing ploy.



5. I would only read it if you want another view at Feynman's life. Keep in mind that half the book is autobiographical and not too interesting