5 comments about Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy.

1. Blackburn has written this book as a defense of philosophy as a practical tool for making sense of the world in which we live. To be perfectly frank making sense of the world is a relatively difficult task.
   Rather than discuss the history of philosophy Mr. Blackburn turns his attention to the topics of philosophy: Does free exist, is there a god, how do we know what we know.

   Over its two thousand year-history, the philosophical tradition hasn't come a long way toward answering these big questions. What it has done, however, is give thinkers methods for revealing obvious fallacies in a whole range of arguments.
   "Think" is designed to give the general reader access to some of the methods and ideas developed by thinkers from Descartes onward. What the book does not do is give the reader any prefabricated answers to these Big questions. Mr. Blackburn is less interested in giving us the answers than he is in showing us how to approach the questions. Although he occasionally offers his own opinion, he is careful to show that there is no easy way to access philosophical truth.




2. Simon Blackburn's text _Think_ presents itself as a "compelling introduction to philosophy." Indeed, at times, it lives up to its billing. However, there are some parts of Blackburn's introductory text that are less than compelling and hardly convincing. Blackburn's book contains eight chapters, brief endnotes, a somewhat cursory bibliography and it includes an index. The book itself is easy to read, if one has a background in philosophy; and _Think_ is hard to put down at times. However, there are two reasons why I give Blackburn's book 4 stars instead of 5 stars. First, Blackburn's tendentious atheism manifests itself throughout this work. Maybe it would not be such a problem, if he generally would not present non-rigorous proofs for theistic arguments and supply putatively formidable arguments for the atheistic Weltanschauung. Many of Blackburn's arguments can probably be refuted by a skilled undergraduate philosophy student, much less by the likes of Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig (to mention only two thinkers who specialize in theistic argumentation). For instance, Blackburn attempts to make a case (in an introductory philosophy text!) for compatibilistic free will without invoking or interacting with some of the best work that has been done on free will and compatibility or incompatibility. No reference is made to works by Peter van Inwagen or some of the Reformed epistemologists. And it seems that he presents a false dilemma vis-a-vis free will and compatibilism when he tilts the scales in favor of the latter (see pages 96-97). Nevertheless, Blackburn's book does make the reader think, even if he or she vehemently disagrees with Blackburn.
   
   The second problem that I have with this book is the concluding chapter. Here, the professor seems to meander, wander, go off-track, asseverates without any logical backing, pontificates and frankly ends his book with a "pop" instead of a "bang." Still, all in all, _Think_ is worth reading if one is interested in debates concerning free will, evil, God's existence or the nature of knowledge (i.e. epistemology). I just wish that Blackburn had been a little more fair to those who disagree with his theoretical outlook.



3. My book club and I all agreed that this book left much to be desired as a survey of Western Philosophy. I had hoped for a better skeleton to hang the fabric of Philosophy upon. However, one cannot go through such a survey without being stimulated to think deep thoughts - 'Do I see red the same way you see red?' - and so forth.
   
   The author did refer to previous philosophers as he progressed in the book, however, It just didn't hang together.



4. Blackburn does a great job of explaining difficult and unintuitive concepts in a common sense way. For example, his arguments about zombies and mutants are a great introduction to the problem of knowing anything outside our own minds, and how that leads to a skepticism of dualism.
   
   The downside is that the book is biased in the tradition towards atheism and empiricism. The biggest source of this bias is ignoring empirical and analytic defenses of the existence of God, such as those of William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga. However, I would not let this discourage anyone. Good writing and clear explanations are hard to come by so I would recommend this book. Another excellent but slightly more technical first book in philosophy is 'An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis' by John Hospers. A good followup is the extremely rigorous and thorough (almost to a fault) 'Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview' by JP Moreland. Non-Christians should buy the book just for its strong sections on epistemology and metaphysics. Finally, read 'Modern Philosophy' by Roger Scruton. At that point only the philosophy majors will know more than you.



5. Blackburn thoroughly and succinctly provides an overview of the major problems of modern (Western) philosophy in a clear and evenhanded manner. He challenges the reader to consider these problems without overwhelming or patronizing him. The reader is given solid ground from which he or she can further investigate issues of particular interest. Notes and bibliography are particularly helpful. I intend to use this volume as a springboard for a college-level introductory philosophy course.

No comments about Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of Wishful Thinking.

5 comments about Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness.

1. This book on interpreting the quantum facts is one of the best I've read. It is one of the best, I think, in its understandability of the enigma one is faced with in trying to go beyond the Copenhagen interpretation.
   This book presents the measurement problem of quantum physics and explains why conscious observation must have some role in influencing reality, if you choose to go beyond CI. The way the authors explain Bell's Theorem and how it became a testable theory that answered the EPR challenge to quantum theory is succinct and comprehensible to the layman, for which it was writen.



2. Quantum Enigma goes where few science books dare to go: right up to the border that separates physics from philosophy. And there it stops. The implication though is strong that something, a field of consciousness (?), is behind the universe and everything in it.



3. It takes a little while to grasp its concepts and I am not completely convinced of all arguments. However, its a very interesting read and I'm naturally a "doubting Jane" when science is involved. I question everything beyond the norm. What this has done is spiked my interest in String Theory so as well as recommending this book as a good starter, I would then recommend you read The Elegant Universe. Better to read this one first.
   
   Happy enlightenment!



4. Truly a classic book! If I had read this book during my college years, I definitely would have been a physics student instead of doing computer engineering. Even though I knew about Schrödinger Cats, It was the biggest surprise for me to read that it was in fact physics' encounter with consciousness. It was always - shut up and calculate approach for most of us. Also being a Vedanta student, it feels good to see that philosophy and science are converging to the same point. Simply the best book on science that I ever read! And it was such a great coincidence that I saw Dr. Fred Alan Wolf and Larry King on CNN discussing the similar subject the day I finished this book.



5. This book is interesting because explains in easy terms physical concepts and they do so with almost no math formulas. I gave this book 4 stars and not 5 because when the discussion departs from "how to explain that observation causes results", they end talking about conscience and it's relation to results. I can't accept that all the universe came to be what it is (including all its pre-history), just because of observation. There should be an elegant way to explain the relation between how things happen in the quantum world, the relation with observation and its relation to the macro world, even when procedurally that way would be the same as the Copenhagen way. This is just my opinion. I am just an engineer; not a physicist or a philosopher.

5 comments about Physics of Radiology, Fourth Edition.

1. This text has been considered the bible of radiation therapy. It is in need of updating to current therapy modalities. Some of the problem answers are incorrect.



2. Dear sir,
   I am an oncologist,I read this book during my M.Phil course.It was 4th edition.I need this book very much.I hope that a new edition will come soon.
   Its an important book for me and i hope that all the oncologist of the world will agree with me.
   Thanks.
   Dr.Q.M.Hussain



3. It's quite clear most of the time. It has basic physics in it so you'd never need to refer to another textbook for simple things that you've forgotten. I wish it was a little more updated though. It's limited in it's coverage of things like neutron therapy. But this book is so good, you could use it as a self study guide, almost.



4. I am a norwegian radiology student, and after searching through a heap of books on this subject, I found out this one was the best of the lot, even if it is outdated. Yes, an update would be nice..



5. Physics of Radiology isn't as complete a text as Martin's, it seems more like a handbook than a physics text, but it is definitely useful and is full of examples that I can't find in other books. It's a little difficult to read straight through because of the visual format (it looks like it was written on a typewriter), but the examples are great references. I would have liked it if the authors used units more often, so that I could more easily adapt the examples but in all, it was a good investment.

5 comments about Molecular Quantum Mechanics.

1. I have always had a reverence for quantum mechanics, but now I have dread. Dread that sometimes manifests in awe, but most of the times, grows from confusion, thanks to the heap of frustration from quantum mechanics.

   I gave the book 4 stars to avoid my biased review doing the injustice to the authors as a result of my own folly, but I must admit that I cannot understand the authors past the chapter on angular momentum (Chapter 4), albeit their breathless enthusiasm to impart the wonder of quantum mechanics to the reader. Probably a formalistic approach that Atkins and Friedman told us they took to present the book hampers my progress. A whole page of obscure subscripts wouldn't seem to help much either.

   The first three chapter took the familiar analytical route, giving way to the intuition to supply insight and inspire the heart during times of imminent failure, yet the introduction of the quantum mechanical concept of angular momentum by the supposedly clever arguments of subscript manipulation went over my head. And this marks the end of my struggle, for after that I am just a regular mechanic.

   The humor in this assumedly humorless subject seems to alleviate the pain a bit. (It should strongly be reminded that such humor should only be reserved for the geeky lot, for those college kids are probably too cool to appreciate a joke from, ugh, quantum mechanics.)

   The book is perhaps too inclined to chemistry (hence Molecular Quantum Mechanics). A considerable amount of mathematical maturity is needed (not necessarily mathematical knowledge), and a readiness to leave your intuition bewildered.




2. Okay, I'll admit that my background in quantum chemistry is pretty sketchy. However I feel much more lost than usual in this book when it comes to understanding the phenomena that they're trying to model. The problems at the back and the solutions that come with the 3rd edition of this book are even worse as he jumps around alot and don't teach you how to think about problems, just random ways of solving it. I guess this is an intermediate quantum course but I feel safer with Levine, which I used in undergrad physical chemistry. He/she (not sure if Ira is a guy) at least goes through the math so that you can follow it pretty easily. Atkins... Not my cup of tea!



3. This text is not for someone that is starting out in the subject, or even for someone looking to get more into quantum chemistry. This is a book for someone already fairly familiar with quantum and particularly quantum chemistry.
   My main issue with this book is that it's way too much information that is not covered in enough detail to give any insight into the methods that are presented. The examples that he uses to illustrate an idea rarely if ever can be generalized to other cases and for someone not already comfortable with this material it will be more than a challenge. I often found myself reaching for McQuarrie's Quantum Chemistry text as well as Griffiths's Quantum mechanics text to help clarify what was presented in this book.
   The questions at the end of the chapter often are confusing and any hint that is given only makes the problem more obscure. What makes it worse is that equations that are cited in the hints are often wrong and unless you know what you're doing you will have a hard time figuring out what they're hinting at. Many of the examples have mistakes and typos in them, and they're not trivial most of the time. For example, in Chapter six they attempt to walk you through group theory. In one of the examples showing you how to get an irreducible representation from a reducible one they mix up the last two rows using the little orthogonality theorem.
   Several of the character tables in the back of the book are wrong as well. This can make several of the problems at the end of chapters more than a little challenging.
   If you're looking for a good quantum chemistry textbook, this is not it. Even putting the typos aside there is too little information in the book for it to stand on its own as anything useful to learn from. I recommend McQaurrie (both undergraduate and graduate texts) or Levine. Griffiths's quantum mechanics text is a useful reference no matter which text you use.



4. I used this text after struggling for the first few weeks in my quantum chemistry course at Berkeley. Recommended by my professor, this text made sense of things that I believed impossible. And, it includes a lot of graphs to boot! I found this book coupled with Griffith's Quantum Mechanics to have been the best possible undergrad combo in my junior year as a chemistry undergrad. In fact, I sold my required text and passed the class with flying colors using just the Atkins book and the Griffith text. Where Atkins is too wordy, Griffith's concise explanations help greatly. And, vice versa, when you need more info, turn to Atkins. Bon chance!



5. This is a beautiful book and has some very clear mathematical introductions to the subject of QM but I fear that the subject matter is still quite formidable and is most useful as a reference to those who are already comfortable with the subject.
   
   John

5 comments about An Introduction to the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

1. This book is an excellent introduction to particle physics. The chapters are short, clear and very readable. As the previous reviewer mentioned, there are a series of reasonable exercises at the end of each chapter with answers provided in the back of the book. Many concepts that field theory or particle physics books leave mysterious or have a difficult time explaining are clearly laid out in this book. I would judge it superior to Griffiths particle physics book, and if you are looking for a nice supplement to serious study of quantum field theory, this is it.



2. This is a very short resume of Standard Model, but well written,
   the misguidance here, is the title "introduction" ... this text
   is not for beginners.



3. 
   This book is about the experimental facts and the theoretical principles that lead to the construction of the Standard Model lagrangian. It is NOT about calculating scattering crossections. Some of the problems ask you to calculate decay rates but only at tree level and the fields are treated like classical fields not operators, with the exception that the fermionic fields anticommute. There is a 12-page chapter on quantizing the fields and renormalization but I find it rather sketchy so don't expect to understand a lot from it if you don't already know it.
   
   You should have some background in varying lagrangians otherwise the book will frequently seem difficult to you. The authors obtain symmetry currents corresponding to a symmetry of the lagrangian not in the standard way of Noether's theorem. Their method is entirely correct but it took me long time to understand because they didn't explain it with enough details the first time they used it (section 7.1, page 65). I think that will throw off the horse many readers.
   
   The style is wonderfully concise which makes the logical structure easier to follow and there isn't the usual fluff `to motivate' things that are simply put guesses like the principle of local gauge invariance. On the other hand, some places definitely need more detailed explanations like signs of certain quantities or the symmetry currents I mentioned above.
   
   The treatment of the Dirac equation and spinors is the least messy I've seen. The way they obtain the nonrelativistic limit of the Dirac equation with EM field is again the best and least messy I've seen.
   
   The book has nice appendix on the groups of the Standard Model which covers what you need to know about SO(3), SU(2) and SU(3) in a very efficient way. There are about 5 problems after each chapter most of which have a solution outline at the end of the book.
   
   Things I understood from this book:
   
   -- why time reversal, space inversion and charge conjugation of fields are defined in a way that previously seemed to me quite arbitrary
   -- how demanding local gauge invariance necessitates introduction of gauge fields which leads to interaction terms
   -- how local gauge invariance can't be proven, it's just a guess that has worked so far hence it's called `principle' (my own interpretation)
   -- global and local symmetry breaking, Goldstone bosons and Higgs boson
   -- how the Lagrangian densities of the electroweak and strong interactions were constructed from the experimental input by demanding local gauge invariance and guessing the symmetry group to be SU(2) and SU(3) correspondingly
   -- what's Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix that mixes the quark fields and how it arises
   -- how symmetries of the lagrangian density lead to conservation numbers
   -- how neglecting some terms in the lagrangian leads to effective lagrangian and effective theory
   -- how to work with the terms in the QCD lagrangian where different matrices multiply different indices



4. In this second edition the authors have upgraded their book to incorporate recent discoveries in several areas including:
   
   o the successes of the theory of strong interactions
   o the observations on matter-antimatter asymmetry
   o advances in neutrino physics, especially as it has become clear that neutrinos are not mass-less
   o the theoretical concepts from the electromagnetic and weak interactions of leptons and quarks to the strong interactions of quarks.
   
   The book is aimed at the graduate student in particle physics. It has a rigorous mathematical structure. After all, the Standard Model is basically a mathematical theory that describes the interactions between leptons and quarks.
   
   Throughout the book there are many references to open questions that likewise reflect the state of the Standard Model.



5. According to my opinion this book is well written and well organized and also quite short so that you are not lost in details.

4 comments about Foundations of Modern Cosmology.

1. I got this book from my university library. Pretty easy reading considering I'm an engineering student. But then, this book isn't just for physics/astronomy students, as the authors have mentioned. It starts by giving a brief history of cosmology, continuing to current understanding before going to the current problems. The book is not math intensive as it emphasize on understanding the concepts. That's why it is something like a popular-science book. For those who have an interest in cosmology, consept-wise, I recommend this title. Those requiring intensive math, look elsewhere. The other cosmology book I've read is by Martin Roos.



2. This is a serious yet easy to read book on a facinating and popular subject and its main commendation is its accessibility and rigour. It is an excellent antidote to some of the glossy and expensively packeged books by "pop" writers and TV programmes.

   As the introduction of the book makes clear, the authors aim for a wide audience for whom Cosmology is not a core discipline. Not only do they do a good job in meeting this goal, but they also present the physical concepts and experimental results in a way that provides new and deep insights to those whose main interest is Physics. For instance, the discussion of the Big Bang and the cosmic models provides an excellent complement to the mathematical presentation of authors like M.V. Berry. Equally, there is a plethora of material that describes experimental results like those for General Relativity: bending of light under the infulence of the sun's gravity, the Eotovos experiment to demonstrate the Equivalence Principle, etc.

   The book covers a broad field: Some historical aspects, Special and General Relativity, the Big Bang and various cosmic models, dark matter, and large scale structure.

   The glossary and the authors' web site provide further information on the subject.




3. I took the class given by Hawley and he makes the book extremely easy to comprehend. Granted, he wrote it, the man is a hilarious comedic genius. He makes the concepts in the book very simple, and easy to understand. I've learned the concepts before in this book, and havent fully comprehended it. This book made it all come together. Get it!



4. I order the book relatively close to the date i needed it for class and got it just in time! Thanks a lot!

5 comments about Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions).

1. This is a short book, and that is its only advantage, unfortunately.

   Granted, that the author is eminent in this field and was himself a student of the great Paul Dirac. However, this book does not sit easily in a series designed to make a subject approachable to the novice. It has far too much esoteric maths than is good for a book of this genre. An ever stronger criticism is the fact that instead of keeping to basic physics ideas such as the double slit experiment (which this book does well!) and then developing the ideas of atomic structure, and the uncertainty principle, it dwells on things like operators and such like.

   If you want a good introduction to Quantum Theory, look no further than the books by George Gamow's "The New World of Mr Tompkins" or "Mr Tomkins in paperback", or, "Uncle Albert and the Quantum Quest".




2. This book does its best, but in the end suffers from something that I think is inherent in the material itself. I did learn a little more about quantum theory from this book, but not much more than I already knew to begin with. And this book didn't really make many of the main concepts any clearer. I don't think is the author's fault, I think it's almost impossible to try to explain these things. Most of the problem, (and similar statements go for cosmology, cryptography, etc.) is that it's almost impossible to explain concepts whose fundamental expression is mathematical language without using mathematics. What inevitably results is some kind of vague, touchy-feely idea of what's meant, but little understanding. And I say this as a mathematician.

   To give just one example, at one point in the book, the author talks about "probability amplitudes", for several pages. The only problem is, he never says what this term is supposed to mean, but he does mention that complex numbers are involved, and other facts. The result after this happens several times is that the reader starts to read entire paragraphs consisting of terminology that's never been defined clearly. The word "operator" is the best example here. It's fine to talk ABOUT operators in indirect, oblique language, but really you don't have a true understanding of what that word means unless you know its precise mathematical definition, or unless you have a clear understanding of the notion of vector space (axiomatically, not "stuff you can add together"). I didn't have this kind of problem with most of the mathematical terminology, because I know it, but the problem comes with the physics -- the physics concepts are essentially mathematical, and trying to explain them without using mathematics is like trying to understand Shakespeare without being able to read English -- you can always give a vague, hazy account, but not much more.

   The book is well-written (aside from an overly-biased presentation of the philosophical aspects), but I think it tries to have its cake and eat it too. It says it's free of mathematics, but this isn't really the case. The whole text is fully of talk about operators, vectors, vector spaces, equations, probability theory, and so on. It's the _symbolism_, not the math, that's missing (except for the appendix, which thoroughly confused me, mainly because terms were introduced without precise definition, and the notation was the physicist's notation, not mathematician's notation...)

   This book was confusing to me, but the reason was because it had too LITTLE math, not too much.




3. I'm thoroughly unimpressed by Rev. Polkinghorne's account of quantum physics. Even though he is technically competent, Polkinghorne seems to get every major interpretation wrong. For example, he thinks Bohr in error to consider free will and determinism complementary. But Bohr's colleague and Nobel Laureate Max Born did say that Bohr's complementarity applies precisely to this situation.
   
   Right on page 1 Polkinghorne shows his tendency to misunderstand. Speaking of Laplace's conjecture, the physicist-turned-Anglican priest writes "In fact, this rather chilling mechanistic claim always had a strong suspicion of hubris about it. For one thing, human beings do not experience themselves as being clockwork automata...."
   
   This is like accusing someone of arrogrance because he said "If I were the president of the United States I would eliminate poverty..." He did say "If," didn't he? Laplace always said this prediction of the future is only possible in principle, but impossible in practice. In fact, in making his "thought experiment" - not a factual "claim," as Polkinghorne thinks - he made two assumptions which he knew to be UNTRUE. First, that such an ideal intelligence exists. (When Napoleon asked him about the Creator after reading his theory of the solar system, Laplace gave this magnificent reply: "Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis.") And second, that this intelligence can analyse absolutely all data at once.
   
   As for what humans "experience," the fact is that not even a frog feels like a clockwork automatum. But what we feel is irrelevant if our belief in free will is due to the unpredictability of our volition, and this unpredictability is due in to deterministic chaos, which leaves no room for free will at all, no matter how irregular we might feel. In fact, no machine can perfectly understand another machine of exactly the same level of complexity, even without chaos added to the difficulty. A machine may be able to understand another of lower level of complexity. The same goes for humans: We may always have difficult understanding ourselves although we may eventually understand simpler organisms. We humans have enough trouble understanding the nervous system of something as simple as a dog. What Polkinghorne should have asked is: What would be the effect of quantum mechanics on this "thought experiment" of Laplace? An honest answer would be: None. Indeed, Laplace did not need chaos or quantum uncertainty to know that his conjecture is no more than just a thought experiment, though a very worthwhile and instructive one.
   
   Polkinghorne puts down other physicists (and auto mechanics in general) by saying "The average quantum mechanic is no more philosophical than the average auto mechanic." Born, however, said that theoretical physics IS actually philosophy. Bohr always said that there are important epistemological lessons to be drawn from the world of physics, especially elementary particle physics. It's as though Polkinghorne has been asleep through all the major developments of the past century. On the few occasions he is awake, he misunderstands and misrepresents. Polkinghorne himself may be no more philosophical than an auto mechanic (maybe even less so), but don't drag people like Schroedinger, Bohr, Born, Pauli, Heisenberg, Wheeler, Bell and Weinberg through the mud with such silly statements.



4. In an introduction to a topic, one expects lots of figures to explain just about every topic. This book, and indeed the entire series, generally has rather few figures. The series also, generally, focuses on the historical development of the topic and not necessarily on the current understanding of the topic. Therefore, the series sacrifices a better explanation of our current understanding to explain who thought what and when. Nonetheless, this book serves adequately in the capacity of a "very short introduction."



5. This pocket-sized, 92-page text--113 pages with appendices and index--professes to be a "very short introduction" to an understanding of quantum theory, to the unseen world that's so many millions of times smaller than even atoms.
   
   It's not at all a bad summary of the field of quantum mechanics, written fairly lucidly, concisely, and with interest, but I'd have to say it's lacking as an introduction to the subject, in that it really does assume its readers are intelligent people with something of a science background. Do not buy this expecting it to be QUANTUM THEORY FOR DUMMIES, because it's still fairly dense and heavy, and not written as clearly or as startlingly as much of Stephen Hawking's stuff. To some readers, this assumption of their intelligence may be refreshing, and it is to a degree, but with a subject as complex and bizarre as quantum mechanics, most non-scientists will need as much help as they can get, help not necessarily to be found in here.
   
   I do have to say, though, that this is a book worth reading, and, then, re-reading. After I read it, I went back through and looked up a few of the more major concepts--quantum entanglement, in which two particles that interact will continue to affect each other no matter how far apart they're separated; Schrödinger's Cat and the idea of a state between life and death, between here and there, between being and non-being; Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and how you can't have a knowledge of both position and momentum of a particle; et cetera--and just that brief re-reading was a huge help to me.
   
   The book will teach you a lot about the subject, and will give you a good start toward further educating your knowledge of this awesome and frustrating topic, this topic which has already done so much toward unlocking the secrets of our existence and our universe--and toward confusing everyone.
   
   Its glossary is lacking, its author has a subtle but evident Christian bias, but overall it's a good little book, and I enjoyed it. I recommend it.

3 comments about Introduction to Radiological Physics and Radiation Dosimetry.

1. There is a dearth of modern texts that treat this realm with due respect anymore-or possibly it is that other texts are aimed at larger -and so less rogorous-markets. Thank heavens someone is still publishing books like this. Attix has done a commendable job here. He pays attention to detail and accuracy. His inclusions are commendable-especially when he covers the Kramer spectrum-you don't get much of that anywhere except references to Kramers original papers! (or a 'result' quoted) here he actually gives an analysis cum derivation. The whole book is commendable and would sit as possibly 'the' contemporary classic on radiological physics.
   
   If this had extensive 'practice problems' (a la Hasegawas text some may know of) then it would surely be also 'the' book to assign for a decent course on radiological physics/radiation measurement. Unfortunately not so. Still the overall rigour and treatment is worth 5 stars from any constellation.
   
   Thoroughly recommend-a breath of fresh air with real physics.



2. Most of dosimetry in actual practice is looking up constants from tables. This book has every table you need for dosimetry calculations. My professor says this is a must have for a career in radiation therapy.



3. This is a classic book for teachers and students in the specific field of study, the radiation dosimetry.

5 comments about Particle Physics: A Very Short Introduction.

1. This book is excellent for anyone who would like to learn fundamentals of particle physics, or refresh his or her basic knowledge in the area. Particles are on the forefront of physics, with new ones discovered or proven to exist not long ago, with new theories emerging, or old ones confirmed or found inconsistent, chances are what we know about particles today is somewhat different than what you may have learned in school back.
   
   Interesting facts and easy to understand comparisons make this book captivating. It explains the structure of atoms, and subatomic particles, as well as methods and instruments used to study them. Sometimes the book is repetitive, but repetition is one of the key aspects of learning.
   
   Overall, this very short introduction feels very fresh and light to a reader, and the last chapter that focuses on current high priority theories to be proven, gives an excellent outlook of what may await us in the future, giving this book balanced perspective.



2. very good for a basic introduction to a most fasinating subject. This books takes this subject, which very intresting and wonderful, can be made terribly dry by a bad writer, and puts it forth in its true glory. I highly reconmend it to anyone whos starting out in physics, or to educators seeking a basic introduction to use in a highschool class room.



3. On page 13 (appropriately enough) of this book, we learn that 'Light travels at 300,000 metres per second'. Alas, there is no explanation of why it has slowed a thousandfold since last I heard. I'm afraid I gave up at that point. The Very Short Introduction books are excellent - than me, you will find no one more enthusiastic about them - but they are prone to typos, and so a book like this, heavily reliant on numbers, enters the series at its peril. You may think I am making too much of one typo, but when the value of a work lies so much in its lists of numerical facts and comparisons, what's the point of persevering with it if you can't trust the numbers?



4. In an introduction to a topic, one expects lots of figures to explain just about every topic. This book, and indeed the entire series, generally has rather few figures. The series also, generally, focuses on the historical development of the topic and not necessarily on the current understanding of the topic. Therefore, the series sacrifices a better explanation of our current understanding to explain who thought what and when. Nonetheless, this book serves adequately in the capacity of a "very short introduction."



5. We owe a debt of gratitude to Frank Close for writing such a short and comprehensible introduction to a field that, in everyday scientific practice, is as technical and complex as they come. It is a major accomplishment to set out, in under 150 pages, not just the history of particle physics, the scales of time and space being investigated, the development of experimental techniques from Rutherford to the Large Hadron Collider, and the key concepts of the standard model that has dominated particle physics for more than 30 years.
   
   Indeed, the neat overview and classification of elementary particles and their interactions in the standard model is sufficient reason to keep this book close at hand.
   
   As befits a very short introduction, the book devotes only limited space to more speculative ideas such as supersymmetry, and indeed strings are mentioned only once. Even so, a few authoritative pages dealing with unsolved theoretical and conceptual problems as they relate to particle physics would have been helpful.
   
   Close is associated with CERN and an enthusiastic advocate of multi-billion dollar particle accelerators. While these machines are indeed impressive, an outside observer cannot help but wonder whether such a regimented and bureaucratic approach to science has not already reached severely diminishing marginal returns. It will be interesting to look back in a few years' time at whether this heavy investment of taxpayer money has paid the dividends in new knowledge and insight that Close and others like him hope for.