5 comments about Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures.

1. Feynman yet again gives great insight into the laws of physics, this time exploring the reasons for existence of anti-particles, starting from the dirac equation etc.. Plus some really outstanding photographs, that fella Weinberg will be chuffed to have his name mentioned on the book cover!



2. As usual, the best physics books are short and to the point, as is this one. The two Dirac lectures may serve as a perfectly good mini physics course all by themselves. I always enjoy a Feynman lecture, and this is no exception. He cuts to the chase without sacrificing the plot. But, I must say, in this case the Wienberg lecture is the better of the two. Weinberg's style has a particular grace & beauty about it that gently exposes the aesthetic meaning of the search for a picture of nature.



3. This short book, Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics, offers two lectures: Richard Feynman's The Reason for Antiparticles and Steven Weinberg's Toward the Final Laws of Physics. These two talks comprise the 1986 Dirac Memorial lectures at Cambridge University. Both presentations are cogently structured and make fascinating reading.
   
   The talks were directed at an advanced audience, one that was familiar with quantum mechanics. Unlike many popular presentations by Feynman and Weinberg, these lectures are not suitable for the general layman.
   
   However, these lectures are accessible to a persistent (perhaps, stubborn) layman with a calculus background and a deep interest in particle physics. I am not a physicist, but I did take my share of physics, chemistry, and math courses several decades ago. I encountered Schrodinger's equation in more than one class, but not relativistic quantum mechanics. However, having recently read Bruce Schumm's wonderful review of particle physics (titled Deep Down Things), I was sufficiently motivated to work my way through both Dirac memorial lectures.
   
   Richard Feynman's lecture, The Reason for Antiparticles, is decidedly the more difficult. Feynman first demonstrates that quantum mechanics and relativity together require the existence of antiparticles, and then shows that they also establish the spin-statistics connection. Within a few pages advanced mathematical expressions appear and then persistently stay in the foreground for nearly the entire talk.
   
   Although understanding Feynman's mathematics is critical for a full and deep appreciation of his exposition, with careful, repeated readings the stubborn layman will have sudden moments of enlightenment and can come away with a deeper understanding of antiparticles and spin statistics. For readers engaged in some self-tutorial readings, it may prove helpful to return occasionally to this classic Feynman lecture to qualitatively measure progress. I have no doubt that, on a deeper level, Feynman's lecture will similarly challenge and enlighten physics majors as well.
   
   Steven Weinberg discusses his speculations on the shape of a final underlying theory of particle physics. Initially, his talk is deceptively easy as few mathematical expressions are used. However, about midway a Lagrangian density equation appears, ratcheting the difficulty several notches, as Weinberg considers a theoretical framework based on quantum mechanics and a few symmetry principles, that is also mathematically consistent with the Lagrangian dynamical principle. After discussion of some limitations of the Standard Model, Weinberg concludes his talk with a somewhat mathematical introduction to string theory.



4. From Richard Feynman, with love. Need more to be said? Read it, and read it again. This one can be read all over again once in a while and does not get boring.



5. When I readThe Feynman Lectures on Physics including Feynman's Tips on Physics: The Definitive and Extended Edition, I was hoping to understand the reasoning behind the exclusion principle, and was disappointed to find that RPF felt that this was too complex for undergraduates, so he asked them to take it on faith for the moment.
   
   Here he is talking to a more advanced audience, and explains it - he was right, it's tough. I'm still struggling to understand it, but I have confidence that this is a good book to help.
   
   [Added nearly a year later] Having reread the book several times, I finally understand Feynman's lecture! As is often the case, once I understand the principle, I see relationships to various other things I had not fully understood before.
   
   I should also comment on Weinberg's lecture: he's talking about more speculative areas than Feynman, which is perhaps one reason I found him less enlightening than Feynman, but in a rather vague way I follow what he's saying. Certainly these are fascinating ideas, but they don't sing to me like Feynman's lecture.

2 comments about Principles and Practice of Radiation Therapy (PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF RADIATION THERAPY).

1. Mr. Washington,whom I know personally as Charles, did any staff member who works in a radiation oncology department, or any student who wants to work in radiation oncology, a great service by revising and updating his three books and combining them into one. As a therapist learning dosimetry this has been an awfully good reference book. I gave my brand new copy as a graduation present to a recently graduated radiologic technologist student who wants to become a radiation therapist. I can't tell you how much he appreciated it.



2. I am happy with my rad ther purchase. it got to me in a timely manner and the book was flawless until about 2 wks in2 class when i began to use the hilitr.

No comments about String Theory Demystified.

5 comments about Deep Down Things: The Breathtaking Beauty of Particle Physics.

1. This book should be a must read for anyone that tries to understand particle physics. I've been looking for something like this for a long time. The Standard Model is explained with great skill and clarity, and with minimal use of math. This is not a mathematical book, but where minimal mathematics becomes necessary (group theory), it is introduced with the assumption that the reader knows next to nothing (which was my case) and developed to the point where, combined with physics, it makes sense. Most of the math only requires logic, not computations, and all you are required to memorize are a few rules -- conventions -- that only take a couple of lines. Beautiful.
   The author limits himself to what is known and generally agreed about particle physics. The limits of the theory are also very well explained, but no significant steps into the unknown are made, which I think it is a good thing for once.
   If you like Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Lisa Randall, and others like them, do them, and yourself, a favor: read "Deep Down Things". It will open new horizons in the way you see, and appreciate, their work. These more popular authors cross into the unknown with beautiful, breathtaking constructs, but none explains the basics as Bruce Schumm does.



2. This author is a master teacher. So often such books are filled with oversimplifications, mystifying metaphors, and ridiculous speculating which do nothing to further anyone's understanding of science. This book is an absolute gem in comparison.
   
   Without getting bogged down in the nitty gritty mechanics of the mathematics, he systematically explains the mathematical concepts behind the standard model of particle physics, step by step and with much summarizing and review throughout. The result is an account that reveals the true nature and beauty of the scientific theories that any reasonably educated person can appreciate.
   
   As a high school science teacher, I admire his rigorous but pedagogically sound style. Although I am keenly interested in physics, it is not my specialty so I learned a great deal I didn't know from this book. More than that, I was awestruck by the beauty of the mathematical theories that were brought to me by this masterful teacher. It takes a truly special writer to bring that experience to the lay person.



3. This is a tough book for the lay person. I am perhaps not suitably qualified to review it, but as I bought it I will do so nevertheless. I fell short of appreciating the "breathtaking beauty of particle physics," although I am certain that particle physics itself is breathtaking. There is a superb introduction and the opening chapter lays the groundwork perfectly, but after that I battled with the algebraic formulae and the complex jargon of particle physicists. The author has so little to say on the metaphysical implications of his subject; it is as though he is sitting in his living room oblivious to an entire herd of elephants. If you are interested in quantum physics as it might relate to how you live your life, then this book is probably not for you. If you are looking for an in depth analysis of the sub-atomic interactions between the "ethereal world" and the natural world, then it is.



4. First a little about my background. I have a master's degree in mathematics, along with the usual undergraduate courses in physics (including introductory Quantum Mechanics). I am currently taking a survey course on elementary particle physics. This course is still at the undergraduate level, so there's no Quantum Field Theory (other than mentioning that there is something called QFT). Being a mathematician however, I am curious about the mathematical ideas, but not curious enough to read graduate level textbooks on QFT just for fun.
   
   So why do I go on and on about my background? The reason is that if you, like me, are curiuos about the mathematical ideas behind elementary particle physics, and you are almost but not quite ready to dive into graduate level textbooks on the subject, this book could be a perfect match (it certainly was for me). What a relief to find a book that is both exciting and easy to read (I read it in five days), and at the same time elucidates a few of the ideas vaguely presented in "The ideas of Particle Physics" by Coughlan, Dodd & Gripaios, which is used in the course I'm taking. With my background I was also able to get a lot more from this book than the average lay person, since I can guess at some of the mathematical details.
   
   It is also nice to know that if I do want to read graduate level textbooks on the subject, I now have a general idea of what the mathematical constructions are for. It is often a problem with graduate level books that it takes some time before you understand why certain abstract constructions are introduced.



5. "Deep" is an existence proof that it is possible to effectively communicate the conceptual essence of an extremely technical subject, the Standard Model of Particle Physics, without resorting to cutesy strained metaphors or wild-eyed speculation. Deep presents a remarkable overview of the framework and principle tools of particle physics that will serve not only to inform the non-specialist but to give the student who is about to embark on a physics curriculum a real sense of one of the more fascinating areas of physics.

5 comments about Clinical Anatomy Made Ridiculously Simple (Medmaster).

1. After "Microbiology Made ...", this is the best book in this series. Most medical graduates don't like studying anatomy for USMLE, but this book will really help. Excellent pictures, mnemonics and stories will help you to remember important facts without memorizing. If you have any doubt about this book, just read "Brachial Plexus" section.



2. I used this book when studying for my medical school gross anatomy course. When I first read over the sections I was studying in class, I thought that the mnemonic devices were somewhat silly and did not try to depend much on them. However, when I found myself in my first written and practical exams, I began reciting some of the seemingly ridiculous analogies from the book. It turned out to be an excellent help. Clinical Anatomy Made Ridiculously Simple is divided into 17 chapters organized by systems. There are two tables of contents, one that follows the systemic outline of the book and another that jumps around pages but is organized into regions of the body. This makes it easy to approach the book from either the systems or regional study. It touched on virtually every aspect that we covered in class. It is easy to understand and will help the reader when he/she has gotten bogged down in anatomical jargon. Although one should not depend on this book a sole text for the study of anatomy, it would make an excellent companion to any anatomy course.



3. I thought this was a great supplement during my course study of anatomy. It does not cover everything, but that's when you go to MOore...it made some things very clear and easy to memorize that were important clinically. I think it was worth the investmenet. But of course the humor may not appeal to all...more for the visual learner I think...



4. I discovered this book during the last third of the med school anatomy course and it literally changed my perspective on the subject. Being a very visual learner, I'd fall asleep after reading one paragraph of Moore. And constructing a three dimensional picture from reading the text - forget it. The analogies in this book worked great for me. It was a great way to see the 'big picture' before searching for details in Moore. It is also surprisingly detailed for such a small book. (You will still need a 'big' textbook, though) I wish all of my books there written in similar style, but I realize some people might not like it. For example, if you enjoy reading Moore, this book is probably not for you. On the other hand, if you find anatomy to be unbearably dry, I highly recommend this book.



5. I was really disappointed with this book. I expected that it would be a treasure chest of memory aids (e.g. rhymes, humerous pictures) for everything from muscle origins/insertions to topographical features of bones. While it does offer a few memory aids, it is primarily a review book, just like any other. In fact, compared to the BRS series it falls far short in the level of detail offered. Therefore, I think it fails as a review book and it fails as a source for memory aids. It may be useful as a review book for an undergraduate level anatomy course.

5 comments about QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Princeton Science Library).

1. Caveat - Be sure to read Professor Zee's introduction as well as Feynman's introduction before you read the rest of the book. More about this at the end of this review.
   
   In my opinion this is one of the best of Feynman's introductory physics books. He does close to the impossible by explaining the rudimentary ideas of Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) in a manner that is reasonably accessible to those with some physics background. He explains Feynman diagrams and shows why light is partially reflected from a glass, how it is transmitted through the glass, how it interacts with the electrons in the glass and many more things. This is done via his arrows and the rules for their rotation, addition and multiplication.
   
   One reviewer has criticized this book because Feynman does not actually show how to determine the length of the arrows (the square of which is the probability of the action being considered occurring) and the how you determine their proper rotation. True, but as is stated in Feynman's introduction, this was never the intention of the book. If you want to learn how to create the arrows used in a Feynman diagram and use them to solve even the most rudimentary problem, you have to major in physics as an undergraduate, do well enough to get into a theoretical physics graduate program and then stick with the program until the second year, when you will take elementary QED. You will then have to take even more classes before you can solve harder problems. Clearly, it is not possible to do all this in a 150-page book aimed at a general audience. He does, however, give the reader a clear indication of what these calculations are like, even if you are not actually given enough information to perform one on your own. Feynman is fair enough not to hide the difficulties involved in actually computing things. He briefly discusses the process of renormalization (that he admits is not mathematically legitimate), which is required to get answers that agreed with experimental data and the difficulties in determining the coupling constants that are also required. In the end, he admits that there is no mathematically rigorous support for QED. Its virtue lies in the fact that it provides the correct answers, even if the approach to getting them involve a bit of hocus-pocus (again his words).
   
   The last 20 pages of the book show how the approaches used in QED, as strange as they are, were used to create an analogous approach for determining what goes on in the nucleus of an atom. This short section shows complexity of nuclear physics and the role that QED has played in trying to unify a baffling plethora of experimental data. Unfortunately, this last section is largely out of date and is hopelessly complicated. Fortunately, it is only 20 pages long.
   
   As mentioned in the beginning of this review, you should read Zee's introduction as well as Feynman's, before you get into the rest of the book. Zee puts QED into proper perspective. Along with wave and matrix mechanics, the Dirac-Feynman path integral method that is described in this book is another approach to quantum mechanics. Zee also points out that while it is a very powerful approach for many problems, it is unworkable for others that are easily solved by wave or matrix mechanics. Feynman's introduction is very important because he emphatically states that photons and electrons are particles and that the idea of their also being waves stems from the idea that many features of their behavior could be explained by assuming that they were waves. He shows that you can explain these effects using QED, without having to assume that they are waves. This eliminates the many paradoxes that are created when one assumes that photons and electrons exhibit dual, wave/particle behavior. QED is not, however, without its own complications. Some of this behavior depends upon the frequency of the photon or electron. Frequency is generally thought of as a wave property, but it can also be thought of a just a parameter that defined the energy of the photon or electron. This is a fundamental idea separating QED from wave based quantum theories. Feynman does not try to speculate why photons and electrons obey the rules of QED because he does not know why, nor does anyone else and we probably are incapable of knowing why. He is completely satisfied that his calculations agree with experimental data to a degree that is unsurpassed by any other theoretical physics calculation.
   
   I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in getting an idea of what QED is all about and to those who seek a deeper understanding of physical phenomena. You will learn how QED explains many things, some of which from the basis for the paradoxes discussed at length in books such as "In search of Schrodinger's cat". Reading this book is a good antidote for the head spinning paradoxes described in that book. Feynman believes that they stem from using a poor analogy (that of waves) to explain the behavior of particles. As far as the deeper questions of why photons and electrons obey the ruled of QED, he does not care, so long as he can get the right answer. This may therefore not be the book for you if you are interested in this deepest WHY, but it definitely is if you want to know more about Feynman's powerful approach to quantum mechanics.



2. Feynman QED lectures show how physics concepts need to be introducing to any people who are scared about science. Feynman was a great scientist and a better pedagogue. It is simple to read and simpler to understand. We need more Feynman's at schools.
   Next book that I am going to read Feynman's Physics Lectures.



3. It takes some slogging, but this is pretty good. If you don't have a lot of physics background, you'll need patience, but your patience will be rewarded.



4. I have given this book to several very talented HS students. It can be understood even without higher math.



5. This book covers four lectures that explains QED in terms of the path integral method, which was developed by the author. Needless to say, this is authoritative on this approach, but it also remarkably clear and comprehensible. Notwithstanding that, I would recommend slow and careful reading, as you may find a small sequence of statements that seem perhaps a little unjustified. Later, Feynman fronts up to some of these, and explains why he oversimplified to get things going. If you see them first, and this is not unreasonable, I believe you will get more from the text. The first lecture is a general introduction that shows how the path of the photon as a particle can be followed in terms of time-of-flight from all possible paths. The assertion is, the photon is a particle, not a wave, however there is no explanation for why there is a term that I would call the phase. The second lecture is a tour-de force and explains in terms of this particle treatment, why light reflects and diffracts, and is particularly interesting in why light behaves as if it is reflected only from the front and back of glass, whereas it is actually scattered by electrons throughout the glass. The third lecture covers electron-photon interactions, and covers Feynman diagrams and shows why QED is the most accurate theory ever proposed. The fourth lecture may seem a bit of a disappointment. The author tries to cover a very wide range of phenomena, which he terms "loose ends", and in some ways this chapter has been overtaken somewhat, nevertheless it also gives a look into Feynman's mind, and that also is well worth the price of the book. It is also here that the issue of renormalization is discussed - if you could call Feynman admitting it is "a dippy procedure" a discussion.
   
   Why buy the book? I suspect this is probably the best chance a non-specialist has of understanding the basis of QED. The biggest disappointment? Feynman dismisses wave theory, which everybody else uses, and replaces it with a monumental raft of integrals. My initial thoughts were that waves are effectively an analogue way of solving those integrals, perhaps a gift from nature, and it is a pity I can't ask Feynman why that option was dismissed.

5 comments about American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer.

1. This book is a quite comprehensive look at his life and took me a while to get through. But it was worth the time I invested to learn about this fascinating American. The impact he had on science obviously is huge, but I didn't realize what an interesting person he was beyond the science.
   
   The political aspects of the story are quite interesting, we don't see too many people in the science community today garnering national attention on the scale that Oppie did in his time. And his skills/passion for the outdoors was a bit of a surprise as well.
   
   Despite a few slow spots, I liked the book a lot and certainly recommend it. The pictures were also a very nice touch.



2. Great read. Well-written account of the man's life and the times. Obviously, one flaw with biographies is any author's infatuation with the subject. I can see as one delves into the life of such a complex and incredible person one begins to sympathize and care of the subject. Whether it is ,this, or the author's are simply very Left my only problem with the book is obvious distaste the authors have for the Right and that tends to cheapen their work. Now, I feel I need to find another account of his life in order to balance out the perspective and then draw my own conclusions.



3. My father spent most of his career in nuclear engineering researching the mathematics of nuclear reactors at Brookhaven. My father had visited all the national labs and got to know all the key players in nuclear physics in the period from 1950-1970. Growing up in that environment I naturally knew a bit about Oppenheimer and Teller and others. It was clear to me that my father had sympathy for Oppenheimer and a great deal of respect. teller was viewed more as a politician looking for fame and publicity. This became even more apparent tto me when in the 1980s I saw how he lobbied the Reagan administration for research on laser based strategic defense satellites.
   
   This book is an account of Oppenheimer's life from childhood through the Manhattan Project with emphasis on the most crucial part of his career as the head of the Los Alamos Laboratory where physicists mathematicians and chemists teamed up to develop the first nuclear weapons that were used against Japan. Oppenheimer was a reserved man who did not seek the limelight. He was brilliant but his biggest asset was his management and leadership capabilities along with very good judgement, something that Teller seemed to lack. It was just the qualities of leadership that led to the succcessful development of the atomic bomb in a few short years at Los Alamos. His liberal past and pre-war affiliation with communism caused him great difficulties and some in the military feared that he was a security risk. He was continually being checked out bt J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. Hoover did not like the appointment of Oppenheimer to the key leadership position at Los Alamos.
   
   After the war was over, strangely the man who was able to keep secrets during the crucial period of the Manhattan Projected was not trusted after the war. He lost security clearance and struggled due to the increased fear of communism from the post-war Sovuet Union including the wave of witchhunting during the Joseph McCarthy era. He was liberal and his pre-war past communist associations hurt him deeply. His philosophy on nuclear weapons and his clashes with his former colleague Joseph Teller made far a tormented post-war career. I believe Oppenheomer felt guilt over his involvement in the development of the bomb and was definitely against the arms race. This period of his life as well as his childhood was important to understand the complexities of this man. The authors do a good job of covering this and do not fall into the trap of just emphasizing the war years.
   
   This book is engaging and very successful at portraying the life character and personality of J. Robert Oppenheimer. He was the right man for a difficult and challenging job and had what it took to get the most out of an odd group of geniuses.



4. Just imagine, an American kid, rich for the times, with a saintly brother, the mind of a polymath, and a knack for atomic physics. Sounds like trouble? It wouldn't have been if he had proceeded down the Nobelist path making his name a household word in thirty other academic households. Fortune would have it that he be associated with an Army General from the Corps of Engineers who had just constructed the Pentagon. This unlikely pair were charged with creating a nuclear bomb. (Thank God Hitler didn't couple Klaus Werner Heisenberg with Albert Speer giving the Germans a bomb in 1941) Oppenheimer and Groves got together the world's best talent in a pasture in New Mexico and with branches all over the place and made the bomb. It worked!
   What a nice story. One would hope that Oppenheimer would find a sinecure and while away the rest of his life teaching, further extending his education, and becoming a scientist statesman. An immortal victory.
   But there was a problem. In the thirties both brothers had feelings about social justice for the working class in California. Neither of them seriously considered armed overthrow of the government, direct action, sabotage or traitorous conspiracies. They were simply parlor pink in the midst of the depression. Sadly, J. Edgar Hoover (in addition to his other activities with the ubiquitous Clyde) took on the issue of spying on American citizens whom he thought were security risks. Worse still, Oppenheimer's wife had lost a previous husband in the Spanish Civil War and both she and he had been dues paying members of the Communist Party. Since Hoover's illegal spying efforts were in no way conclusive, he bided his time. After the war, the government was replete with advisory groups divided between the grossly incompetent political favorites and a minority of real experts. The age of Joseph McCarthy and Roy Cohn. One of the Republican forms was a financial type far better known as a fund raiser than a nuclear physicist. Lewis Strauss, a close friend of the advertising executive (Lasker) who named Kotex and Kleenex. Strauss developed a real hate for Oppenheimer and set out to destroy him by removing all of his security clearances.
   Strauss was remarkable in that he never finished college or university but convinced Eisenhower he would be a good member of the Atomic Energy Commission.
   Oppenheimer, Director of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, looked on this insult to him as a deeply personal wound that never healed. Strauss was later rejected as Secretary of Commerce in part because of his own little scandals and in part because of the injustice delt to J. Robert.
   This story would be sad and humiliating to any American Scientist. Coming as it does, in the midst of an administration so studiously ignorant of personal justice with abundant evidence that it could be repeated at any time will not inhibit the courage and steadfastness that scientists must also have.



5. I cannot find this book. It came with one other book that I am now reading. I can't remember if this book was actually including in the package (as indicating by the packing statement)and it got immediately misplaced or accidentally thrown out with the package or if it was inadvertently not included in the package when it was sent to me.

5 comments about Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions.

1. "The postulated braneworlds are a theoretical leap of faith, and the ideas they contain are speculative. However, as with the stock market, riskier ventures might fail but they could also reward you with greater returns." Sound familiar science fans? This popular apologetic pitch for strings/branes has been written quite a few times over the past two and a half decades. Lisa Randall's Warped Passages stands with the best of the several I've read, but the risky market of her analogy is more connectable to the physical world than are `braneworlds', whose "greater returns" continue to have no physical home beyond such happy sounding analogies and the professional commitments of Ed Witten's disciples.
   
   The story of string/branes cannot be well told without expositing the history of theoretical physics. Newton's brilliant and far reaching understanding of gravitation and his promising but limited grasp of particles and of relativity, eventually had to give way to the deeper understandings introduced by Planck and Einstein, and advanced by Bohr and Heisenberg. But even with its tremendous and ongoing successes, quantum theory has always suggested that it is not a complete picture of nature. George Gamow, one of the principle `completers' of quantum physics had expected a deeper view of nature to begin to appear forty years ago. But nature's deepest secrets have remained beyond our grasp. String theory promised access to `the mind of God' -- borrowing Hawking's famous hyperbole of nearly 25 years ago (which he had borrowed from Einstein, and which Einstein had borrowed from Kepler) -- reducible to elegant mathematics. But string theory became many string theories, which became M theory, which became braneworlds theory, the mathematics became less elegant and the theory abjured from what most would be willing to call the scientific method and from the logical principle of economy commonly referred to as Okham's Razor. There could be no conceivable greater violation of Okham's principle than braneworlds theory, which demands 10 to the 500th power, or more, possible ensembles of non-examinable and unknowable `worlds'. This is a very far cry from "elegant".
   
   Randall offers that there *might* be *possible* future experimental results that *could* be more consistent with braneworlds theory than other possible results, this is as much of an olive branch as the strings/branes speculation can hold out to the real world of scientific falsifiability. It's okay to be unimpressed. At this point, I think it should be mandatory.
   
   Randall's book is well organized and well presented, and if you're looking for an exposition on braneworlds that is thorough at an accessible `entry level', this book will be better than most. On the one hand, I'd like to rate her book at 4 or 5 stars, based on style and presentation. But the intractable problems remain with the open-ended, extra-scientific speculations that she is pitching. Like Leonard Susskind, another ardent apologist for strings/branes, Randall cannot avoid constant admissions that the entire field of study is as speculative as ever, and may prove to be a wasted effort. In the end, this is as much as can be honestly said of strings/branes. We may call strings/branes a conjecture, but it fails to amount to a theory unless that word is dispossessed of its normal meaning.
   
   With 25 years of strings/branes to scrutinize, it is apparent that it is a topic better fitted to mathematical and theological studies than to theoretical physics. It is not fitted to experimental physics at all.
   
   The impetus, i.e., the pressure, to pursue strings/branes, is understandable on several levels. But Randall's early chapter references to Edwin Abbott's 19th century classic `Flatland', a little book treating dimensions, is as powerful as the strings/branes conjecture gets (Flatland is clearly more modest and more persuasive). I give Lisa Randall credit for her attempted honesty and nearly ubiquitous caveats: "Today, we can't say whether or not the obstacles facing the theory are `insuperable' or not . . ." (pg 297), and, "no one has yet found a way to solve many of the most important questions . . ." (pg 453); with these necessary admissions reappearing every few paragraphs throughout much of the book. The profound secrets of nature are indeed arresting, but strings/branes speculations have NOT presented us with any verifiably real knowledge of nature. Nor is it apparent how strings/branes could ever do so. After dominating research for 25 years, it seems that strings/branes cannot bring us anything as physically concrete as Abbott's Flatland did nearly 125 years ago. Regarding the growing mathematical *inelegance* of braneworlds, as well as the scientific irrelevance of the speculation, I recommend mathematician Peter Woit's important book, Not Even Wrong.



2. Lisa Randall has done an amazing job of relating some fairly tricky-to-comprehend subject matter. Her perspective falls heavily into the experimental scientist camp, firmly rooted in the standard model, versus many of her colleagues in the string theory camp who are certain that they have the answer, even if they can never prove it. You will still find plenty of mind, space and dimension-bending theory in this text, but Dr. Randall is meticulous about defining the line between what we know, what we can know, and what we cannot know. As attractive as string theory is, Dr. Randall keeps her audiences' feet firmly stuck to the ground of currently accepted information on the behavior of fundamental particles and interactions. She places string theory in a realistic perspective not often elucidated by its proponents.
   
   Rather than spoil the journey through all of the incredible possibilities that surround the dimensional nature of the universe, Lisa Randall reminds us that the world is an even more awesome and bizarre place when we are not seduced by shortcuts. When we don't skip to the end, we are still able to enjoy every step on our path to discovery. Lisa Randall also enables readers with varying degrees of knowledge to read the book at several levels by warning the novice when it would be a good time to skip to another section, and when more seasoned learners may want to stick around for more background and detail.
   
   For a really good time, I recommend reading Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds either just before or just after Warped Passages. Both of these amazing minds do a great job of illustrating their thinking on the dimensional possibilities in the universe, or rather, "multiverse". Both physicists are great story-tellers and do a wonderful job of laying the historical foundation for our current state of understanding and theory. Both authors make compelling arguments for their perspective.



3. The contents of the physics which progressed after the 20th century came are explained plainly.
   It is the book of the interesting contents which can imagine the strange universe.
   The experimental device which will work in 2008, and this result are pleasure.



4. Why couldn't she be an instructor of mine?????? I'm very interested in physics and whatnot and this book is awesome. I don't know what else to say. you'll like it!



5. PROS: Deep analysis of high energy physics. Good job at explaining bizzare ideas/theories.
   
   CONS: Although Randall makes many analogies to try to grasp tough concepts, I wish she would have made even more. Also, the book could use more and better illustrations to help the reader understand these extremely complicated ideas. The book loses one star for each of those shortcomings.
   
   CONCLUSION: If you've read Stephen Hawking and found yourself wanting to know more, read this book. It's extremely difficult to subject to write about, especially for the layperson. She does a pretty good job.

5 comments about The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory.

1. I am an engineer by education and experience. Like many engineers I am fascinated with the subject of quantum mechanics, superstrings, hidden dimensions, the quest for the theory of everything, parallel universes and more. Much of it isn't easy to understand, but it sure is fun!
   
   For years I had been hearing about superstrings. I have read In Search of Schrödinger's Cat, Schrödinger's Kittens, books on Einstein's theories, and more. I have also read articles on these subjects, watched several amazing TV shows and movies. Some teased the idea of superstrings, but I never came away with a feeling that the concept had been explained properly.
   
   Brian Green's book the Elegant Universe, and the subsequent PBS show does just that! It gives the best explanation of superstrings I have read (and seen) to date. Green also does a great job explaining parallel universes, hidden dimensions, quest for the ultimate theory and more.
   
   The subject matter in the Elegant Universe is tricky to explain. Green has to do a balancing act to present the concepts in a way that are easy enough for the educated layman to understand, but complex enough to preserve their richness.
   
   Fortunately, Green does an exceptional job at presenting the material. And, he does it with great insight, passion and humor!
   
   My head hurt when he talked about some of the concepts such as 12 dimensions instead of the 4 we know about...but it was a good hurt. Overall a fantastic book and PBS show!
   
   The Re-Discovery of Common Sense: A Guide to: The Lost Art of Critical Thinking



2. It is interesting to consider that the subject matter for this book essentially concerns only the last one hundred years or so of human history, ever since the time of Einstein's work, and that by way of comparison it only goes back to the time of Isaac Newton. Prior to Newton's day, the physical laws of the universe were understood almost exclusively in terms of the religious and allegorical. Only very recently in human history has there occurred this intense kind of scientific study, which the author describes here. Of course, the actual work involves a mathematics that is quite complicated, but the author has done a good job in telling the story in layman's terms. A few of the analogies are probably not the best in the world, but I found the book to be excellent reading, especially about how string theory developed, and only really stumbled in chapter 10, the one on quantum geometry.
   
   While relativity and quantum mechanics are notable for being counterintuitive, string theory is especially interesting in that it fills in the gaps (it accounts for gravity in the way the other theories do not), and provides a more intuitive basis. It makes sense to think of the most basic element of the universe as a vibrating string, certainly much more so than as a point particle. I think of a vibrating string as being a nexus between energy and the most fundamental kind of matter. It makes more sense to think that energy comes before matter rather than matter before energy.
   
   Although the author does not directly deal with the question, it seems that he posits that string theory is an explanation of a self-contained universe. In the instances in which the fabric of space is torn, he explains that string theory provides a way for space to be mended. If the universe contracts back to the time of the big bang, it will not go back to nothing but rather to a "big crunch". Even the multiple dimensions of the theory, which lead one to think of another universe, have the sense of being on this side of the known universe. The biggest question that I could see concerns how string theory explains black holes. Is information lost in a black hole? The author seems to be on the side of those who don't think so, but concedes that there is no way to know at this point.



3. Fun stuff and all, especially for the first half when he shows an amazing ability to explain complicated concepts in a way that you can understand. Holy crap, I finally get what Einstein was banging on about with all those Special Theories!
   
   But after a while it gets into the kind of territory where he's gotta say "And then there are ten dimensions and the reason why is a whole bunch of math that you won't understand, so take my word for it." It's not his fault; at a certain point, there's just no way to describe things without insanely complex math. I do take his word for it - that's no problem - but still, that doesn't exactly help me understand it intuitively.
   
   But anyway, I guess there are all these dimensions and stuff. So that's...pretty cool.



4. Brian Greene provides an excellent introduction to the topic of superstring theory, its history and evolution; its current status, achievements and obstacles; and its areas of focus for future study. The book is written for the layman, in a style that is honest, clear and concise, using numerous real-world examples to explain the basic theories, and excludes mathematical explanations as much as is possible. The early chapters on special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and quantum electrodynamics are brief and superficial and serve more as historical backgound to the main focus of the book which is superstring theory. Consequently, the book is somewhat biased in that it does not look at alternative views of the nature of the universe, on the assumption that superstring theory may eventually prove to be the theory of everything. This is because the primary goal of superstring theory is to combine general relativity (theory of the very large) and quantum mechanics (theory of the very small) and provide a unified theory of the four fundamental forces of nature - the weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces.
   
   The main chapters on superstring theory and M-Theory can be difficult to understand, even to accept as valid, for the layman, but keep in mind that string theory is extremely complex, not fully developed, virtually impossible to test, and consequently, not fully understood at present. The core of superstring theory is that all matter in the universe is made up of one(2,3,etc)-dimensional vibrating strings and hidden dimensions which currently cannot be observed or measured, and may never be. Consequently, matter is not infinitely small but has a very small finite size. Nor is matter and energy limited to the 3-dimensional world we live in, but can occupy up to 6 or 7 higher dimensions that are hidden from our everyday experience.
   
   This book is well worth reading, but whether the layman walks away with a better understanding of the universe after this introduction to superstring theory is debatable. What the layman may walk away with after reading this book is a myriad of questions regarding the very assumptions upon which superstring theory is based. That superstring theory is elegant, and its complex mathematics are elegant, there is no doubt, but whether the universe is also elegant will depend on the validity of superstring theory as a true description of our universe.
   
   Here are some questions from a layman reader:
   1. If we know that observing a small particle changes its position and velocity, and we know how it changes, then we should still be able to observe it.
   2. Where do vibrating strings get there energy from?
   3. The hidden curled-up dimensions seem to exist at the micro level. Why do they not exist as extensions of our four spacetime dimensions, in a way that encapsulates them, at a macro level?
   4. The theory is now up to 11 spacetime dimensions. Is it due mathematical convenience or limitation? Does it really matter if there are 11, 11 million, or an infinite number of spacetime dimensions?
   5. Using duality symmetries, why not assume that gravity is simply a phase transition of the other 3 forces (weak, strong, electromagnetic)?
   6. Does a large mass spinning body create friction, and/or a charge, with its surrounding space that would help to explain gravity as more than the mere warping of space?
   7. If there is a large black hole at the center of our galaxy, should not our galaxy be shrinking, and cant this be measured?
   8. We seem to understand how black holes are created, but not how they die. Why not assume that black holes simply reverse themselves after taking in a suffient amount of matter and energy, and releasing it in the form of a mini-big bang?
   9. Why assume that the universe was created in a big bang. Aspects of superstring theory seem to suggest that the universe may be a perpetual, self-sustaining entity. While everything within the universe can change, including the universe expanding and contracting, the universe itself is a constant.
   10. Are particle accelerators dangerous? Clearly in an attempt to experimentally verify superstring theory, physicists are going to smash particles not just to create new particles predicted by theory, but to try and tear the fabric of space, or to open a portal to a higher dimension, or even to try and create a mini black hole. Of course this does not seem to be a problem for superstring theory which suggests that most disturbances in the universe eventually get averaged out, zeroed out, smoothed out, smeared out, annihilated out, or simply self-repair themselves.



5. just read lee smolin's book.
   
   The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next (Paperback)
   
   over 30 years,the gang of stringers have been trying to find any evidence even at atomic level for their theory , but they failed.
   
   better to read science fiction novels..

5 comments about Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy.

1. If you like your science with endless, irrelevant narrative concerning facts arbitrarily selected by the author based on their romantic attachment to whatever, then this book is for you. I bought this book for some meat-on-bone reading. What I got was tedium ad nauseam. "The driveway and an area around a garage were occupied by an ancient wooden hay wagon with iron-bound wheels from the Idaho ranch, a battered van, an antique school bus Rip had turned into a camping vehicle, various tools and farm equipment, and a metal-working shop with sheets of corrugated metal, lengths of pipe, and coils of wire". (p.22) Oh PUH-lease. Let's get on with it. The book reads like a kindergartener's first reader, and the name of the scientist involved adds to this feel. "See Rip run. See Rip exhale carbon dioxide. See Rip's exhaled carbon dioxide contribute global climate catastrophe."
   
   The chapters on WIPP and subsea were the best, and are the sole reason for my giving this book two stars. As a degreed engineer, I could seriously have done without the grandma-knows-best, romantic visions of the environment discourse.



2. The good sides of this book are manifold. First of all, probably due to the fact that the author is a professional novelist, one has to say that "it reads like a book": it is difficult to put it down, and the fourhundred something pages are read with ease and fun. The second good side of this book is that it is full of very interesting, and not always well-known information, even to people in the field. It is a mixture of technical issues and human relationships.
   
   However, there were two points that irritated me somewhat. First of all is the somewhat naive attempt at "showing that we are environmental activists too". The arguments put forward should stand by themselves, and not because the authority in the book (Rip Anderson) and his wife are also local concerned activists for one or other ecological cause.
   The other point I found disappointing was the somewhat simplistic technical treatment of several key aspects in the nuclear power happening. The main point I found disappointing was the missing of a clear discussion of fuel reprocessing, fast breeders, thermal reactors and so on. These subjects are touched upon, but they are very vaguely treated ; nevertheless, this is an essential part in the future of nuclear power if it is to have a future. In other words, at the end of the day, you have to take some expert's word for it, as the book doesn't give you the means to verify some aspects yourself in a logical derivation, even though most of the information in the book is factually correct.
   
   That said, this book is a very good read for people who have been fed on the vocal absurdities spread around by anti-nuclear activists such as Helen Caldicott. A read of both is probably a good thing, but one should start with "Power to save the world", as it gets most of its facts right.



3. It's thorough and thought provoking -- enough to motivate me to look up parallel information as I read through the book.
   
   I really like how the author balances risk and benefit throughout, and gets her readers to think in those terms. There seemed to be little glossing over hard facts. Overall, the book takes away my concerns about the risks of nuclear, especially as compared to other sources - like the filthy coal industry. I love the idea of solar, but her perspective on the toxic manufacturing and disposal process for solar cells helps answers questions I've long wondered about. She isn't against other forms of energy generation - just puts them in perspective. Nothing is free, easy, or perfect.
   
   It was amazing to learn about the incredible advances in reactor technology and how it can be done with a tiny fraction of the waste now generated.
   
   Her dissection of the disposal issue takes away the scare factor.
   
   The book informs a highly emotional discussion in a rational, reasonable way and demolishes a lot of mythology. There are parts I had to re-read to digest, but it's written about as easy to understand as it could be to cover the subject with the depth it does for a layperson.



4. Ms. Cravens has written a very good book discussing the complete nuclear power cycle from a lay person's perspective. Her discussions concerning power baseloading and comparing nuclear sources to coal sources for powering the national power grid are narratives that are rarely, if ever, discussed outside of the power industry due to the emotional issues that nuclear power brings forth in people.
   
   As a non-technical author and former protester against nuclear power, Ms. Cravens tackles the subject material of nuclear power, the security issues, health issues and comparisons to other major power sources with a thoroughness not usually seen at this level. Her approach to "tag along" with noted retired DOE scientist, Rip Anderson and his openness and patience towards teaching a non-technically trained person the ins and outs of the nuclear power cycle add to the narrative. The unique approach she takes to treat her investigation of nuclear power as a personal journey leads to Ms. Cravens' ultimate understanding that nuclear power must be one of the power sources we rely on for our power needs as we go into the 21st century.
   
   The book provides an excellent overview partly due to the length of time it takes for Ms. Craven's accounts of her travels and interviews to be written. Ms. Cravens does not try to write this book in 3 or 6 months just to ride the coattails of the latest nuclear headlines. Instead she took the time she needed to fully understand nuclear power, other sources of electrical power and the subject of baseloading before finalizing her book. The time was well spent as she is able to competently write about the use of nuclear power in today's world of shrinking inventory of carbon based fuels, greenhouse effects and increasing international tensions.
   
   I highly recommend this book for anyone who is truly interested in the discussion and future of nuclear power. It does not answer every technical question but that was never the goal of the book. What Ms. Cravens' book does is address the necessary critical technical and nontechnical questions about the nuclear power cycle and the power needs of the United States from a layperson's level. This book should be used as reference material for any critical discussions or debates concerning the pros and cons of nuclear power.



5. Another book from a writer who says "I was anti-nuclear but I think different now". What sort of message can we expect from somebody who says "In 50 years of operation, they have caused no deaths to the public"? Obviously she has never heard about Chernobyl, or the cancer clusters near Sellafield and La Hague. And still she does not answer the questions that environmentalists raise about nuclear power: What are we going to use when we run out of uranium? what do we do about people living near nuclear power stations who get sick and die? What are we going to do with nuclear waste? Not to mention all the "what-if's" about accidents and possible terrorist attacks. This book shows you one side of the story, and hides the other one.