Slashdot Log In
Roger Penrose and the Road to Reality
from the my-compass-is-broke dept.
Flipping through the eleven-hundred pages, you notice the gratuitous inclusion of mathematical formulae and the chapter titles on the page headers -- "Quantum algebra, geometry, and spin," "Gravity's role in quantum state reduction," "Calculus on manifolds" -- suggest a far more exclusive audience than yourself, a lowly paper-pusher with a four-year degree. "But then, what's this doing in the popular new releases?" you ask yourself, "Shouldn't it be hidden away in the darkened corner of the store's physics section?" But that's where you're wrong, you realize, glancing through the author's preface; this book is for you: Penrose has, it seems, composed a mathematical physics book for the general audience -- and not merely an introductory one, but one that takes you to the frontiers of modern theory.
The trouble with the common popular-science books that propose to illustrate modern physical theories is in their implicit premise of avoiding mathematical notation and concept in favor of plain English. This works to an extent, but ultimately breaks down when the nature of the subject matter itself is mathematical. Indeed, after reading the wonderful Dancing Wu Li Masters, the reader is no more prepared to plunge into a textbook on modern physics or to comprehend even the titles of the latest mathematical physics papers on Arxiv.org. Physicists know about the fundamental particles or the nature of space only through the mathematics that model the phenomena. Which is not to say that such English language renderings are useless, but they skillfully devise to distance themselves from what physicists actually do, as well as to reenforce readers' natural aversion to numbers and formulae.
Penrose's approach is not to dive head-first into the most strenuous material or to assume a proper background for the comprehension of advanced physics; instead, the first several chapters are devoted to building the necessary mathematical subtext for the remaining bulk of the book. The volume's length is not, as is often the case, a result of lengthy diversions or pedantry (needless complexity); Penrose keeps his eye on the ball throughout, consistently informing the reader how the topic at hand is related to the over-arching theme and infusing the more well-known pedagogy with creative insight, so that even a talented math major may learn from the introductory chapters on number systems or geometry. What's more, the careful organization of the disparate topics permits a fluid drift from one to the next. The effect is a single cohesive book and not a collection of notes or essays.
With 390 illustrations and a generous supply of endnotes and bibliography entries, it's clear that Penrose didn't consider the work completed with the text alone. The inclusion of short problems within the footnotes hints to the reader what concepts are important to understand. The usual footnote-commentary is withheld for the endnotes at the end of each chapter.
It's probable that the name "Roger Penrose" might excite some memories you may have of his previous works, published over a decade ago, both of which explore the mind-brain relationship. At least one of these (Shadows of the Mind -- the other is the more popular The Emperor's New Mind) proposes a quantum theoretical explanation for consciousness which was perhaps too liberal to have been taken seriously by neurologists. Penrose's efforts in quantum theory have, however, been more successful than those in neurology: in 1988 he was awarded the Wolf Prize, one of the very highest honors in mathematics (perhaps second only to the Fields Medal), along with Stephen Hawking, and has made invaluable contributions to quantum physics for the past several decades, proving himself to be one of the finest scientific minds of our day. In consequence to his stature, it's certainly a treat for laypeople that Penrose has donated the time and energy to the creation of a monumental expository work for general consumption.
Whereas the average pop-science journalist reaches upwards to accrue a book's material, Penrose's acknowledged expertise on the subject forces him back towards the ground again. If you think about it, I suppose this is as difficult a task, since much of what Penrose describes he's known for forty or fifty years (he was born in 1931). He apologizes in the final chapter for the necessity of handpicking among the dozen or so "theories of everything," sometimes according to his own professional biases. Today's leading theory, "String Theory" along with the theory of "Loop Quantum Gravity," and the little known "Twister Theory," are all covered in the later chapters; the first portion of the book builds the mathematical foundations for the succeeding chapters, which give an indepth treatment of quantum physics and quantum field theory. These topics are followed by the previously described "theories of everything."
A glance at the table of contents may make or break your purchasing decision; chances are, if you find the mysteries of the terms somehow galvanizing, then you'll enjoy the book. On the other hand, if the eclectic terms frighten you, you should perhaps look at the preface (where Penrose gives solace to anxious readers), or it may be best to avoid the book altogether.
As I mentioned earlier, little has been done for the general audience to explore the wide expanse between physics and mathematics. The Road to Reality is, in this respect, a virtually pioneering effort, and given its size, scope and quality, I would venture to guess it will remain the de facto text in its area for many decades to come, and may safely be placed on your bookshelf next to E.T. Bell's Men of Mathematics, Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach, or Benjamin Yandell's recent (*highly* recommended) The Honor's Class: Hilbert's Problem's and Their Solvers.
I am fortunate to have had some mathematics education and so am familiar with the basic principles of complex numbers, calculus, and geometry, making the first several chapters, while still insightful, less toilsome than it might've been. I suspect that the average bright high school graduate would have no trouble with Penrose's quick treatment of these concepts. I would recommend the reader have at least some familiarity with the basic terms of mathematics and physics (i.e. when Penrose mentions "set" you know he's referring to a particular mathematical structure) or the book could overwhelm you quickly. Additionally, readers would be at an advantage having read "English-based" modern physics books such as The Dancing Wu Li Masters, Michio Kaku's Hyperspace, Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe or a similar book about 20th century quantum physics. Either way, it's safe to say that despite the virtuosic readability of the text, it's still going to take an intellectual commitment on the part of the reader to reap all of the available knowledge."
You can purchase The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Also in the June issue of Discover (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Also in the June issue of Discover (Score:3, Informative)
Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach (Score:5, Informative)
It's an absolute classic, I can't recommend it highly enough.
Re:Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach (Score:5, Insightful)
-he's clearly smarter than I am. Not that remarkable, but we all run into idiots who have nothing to teach us every day. Reading the words of someone who has an unambiguously superior intelligence is not something that we do every day.
-he's generous with his talents. Like Carl Sagan, he's got an obvious love for what he studies, and he takes the time to write the books for anyone who wants to commit a little brain power to learn something new. Hey, thanks! I appreciate it.
-he understands how science is supposed to work. The Emperor's New Mind was the second book on the same subject. His first book ran into a lot of criticism, and so he wrote the second book taking that into account, to address the criticism. That's the mark of a real scientist like Penrose vs. a crank. A crank would have written the book, bristled at the criticism, and proceed to while like a little bitch about how the scientific "orthodoxy" rejects any new idea, because it threatens their little imbecilic closed minds and comfortable little lives in their ivory towers. Penrose shows us all how to be criticised: accept the criticism, learn from it, refine your theories, and try to persuade the critics again. Lather, rise, repeat. Penrose knows that he bears the burden of proof.
Read Penrose's books.
Parent
but his AI theories are terrible (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I can tell, his argument was "quantum physics is complicated. The brain is complicated. Therefore it can only be explained as quantum physics".
Parent
When physicists do AI, it's not pretty (Score:5, Insightful)
It really is that bad. Nature called it "a masterpiece of psuedoscience".
AI as a field has its own problems, but these guys aren't helping.
Parent
Re:Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd actually go so far as to say that my entire worldview, as pertaining to biology and it's application of physics/chemistry, would crumble.
All 'inventions' are based off physical principles. In many instances these are taken from the existing biological world, and if they are not, it is soon found out that nature has something similar already. And it's getting so that more and more inventions which are at
Re:Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you defend your theory against that?
Parent
Re:Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach (Score:3, Interesting)
It's written for the masses, and the, as you demeaningly call them, script kiddies.
I'm 24 now, and I also find the things in GEB to be a bit trivial. But when I read it, along with Kaku's 'Hyperspace' at the age of 14, I was awestruck. They almost singlehandedly were the cause of my choice to go into physics.
My point here is that GEB and popular science books are 'mind-molders'. They pack a
That's "Twistor Theory". (Score:5, Informative)
Any relation to living deities is purely... (Score:3, Funny)
I saw that, you little git.
Well, I'll deceive you no more; I *am* that deity, and you're right- I'm one sadistic, sociopathic motherfucker. I've hacked this user's account ('Dogtanian' seemed appropriate because it had my name in it backwards.... ha ha, just my little joke. LAUGH you pitiful humans, or I'll smite you with that plague thing again).
Why? Just to let you know that pissing me off is a *really* bad idea; when the DEITY
Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Same Penrose? (Score:5, Interesting)
And then sued the chair of my painting department, Clark Richert for using the same pattern in a *painitng*
And then lost that case, learning that my chair figured that pattern out years before him - by accident? The proof being a photo of the painting - on the side of a bus. The license plate was used as the evidence for date.
I'm not quite sure if I like this guy
Re:Same Penrose? (Score:4, Informative)
Further, there is no single Penrose Tile pattern - it is the concept of a pattern, or lack of one, that emerges using only two tiles. You can combine them in such a way that there can be no repeating pattern.
Penrose's patent covered the ability to create an acyclic pattern using only two tiles.
Penrose never sued anybody - Clark Richert claimed discovery of the two tile acyclic pattern at the same time as Roger Penrose.
Either you're trolling or your professor is another Isaac Newton - pissed off because Liebniz got there first.
Parent
Re:Same Penrose? (Score:3, Informative)
Penrose never sued anybody
This blog [stefangeens.com] cites a story from The Wall Street Journal from April, 1997 that appears to be genuine. [wsj.com]
I think this is good (Score:4, Insightful)
I just hope this book doesn't do anything like imply that there's any evidence whatsoever for the veracity of string theory.
Re:I think this is good (Score:5, Informative)
Well, actually string theory literally does claim those extra dimensions exist, and Schrodinger's cat is not just a metaphor.
I've read The Road to Reality, and would not recommend it to anyone who doesn't have at least an undergraduate degree in math or physics. You have to read hundreds and hundreds of pages of math before you even get to any physics, and the math is not explained thoroughly and clearly enough that a layperson could really understand it. For me, it was like, "Oh yeah, I remember that course in grad school," but if I hadn't already had the course, I wouldn't have been able to follow it.
If you need somewhere to start, and don't know any physics, try one of the free introductory physics books listed here [theassayer.org]. After that, if you want to try to bring yourself up to the level Penrose is shooting for, try some of these:
Parent
Book review, Zork style (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Book review, Zork style (Score:3, Funny)
I don't understand that command.
The grue eats you.
You are dead. Now I will format your hard drive.
stop do not format
I don't understand that command.
A grue ate your hard drive. I see that you have a cute little dog sitting in your lap.
leave my dog alone
I don't understand that command.
Normally I don't like Big Fat Books... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm actually just taking a couple of months off to finish it properly. Like TAOP this is one of those books you need to read with a notebook to hand. Reading it in the bath could prove hazardous...
I dunno about you... (Score:5, Funny)
but if this were me described above, I'm spending it on alcohol, or something to give me a cheap thrill.
A geek book that's going to "take an intellectual commitment on the part of the reader" isn't on my top 10 list.
And people wonder why geeks don't get laid more often.
Re:I dunno about you... (Score:3, Funny)
* Please note: I speak as both a man and a woman as I know we both find each other quite moronic
Re:I dunno about you... (Score:3, Funny)
Spoken like a true virgin
Please note: I speak as both a man and a woman
Wow, a hermaphrodite! Cool! It must be really meaningful to you when somebody tells you to go fuck yourself, huh?
What is this, a Zork review? (Score:5, Funny)
Not to Forget (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not to Forget (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:David Suzuki ??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Another One (Score:5, Informative)
It Was a Dark and Stormy Night (Score:5, Funny)
-Peter
Dancing Wu Li Masters (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone have an informed opinion on its failings?
My 'theory of everything' (Score:3, Funny)
or in its alternate form
everything is a load of shite
Needless to say this quite brilliant encapsulation of everything has sparked some debate as to whether the shite is real or metaphysical.
Awesome! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm going to pick it up as well. (Score:3, Funny)
If my boss asks too many question, I'll use my white board to copy some of the formulas.
Sciscoop/Huntsville Times Review (Score:5, Informative)
Penrose's take on the universe is a pretty amazing one, but a very difficult one to grasp. The main point is: we just don't know enough about the world yet. Not enough mathematics, and our experiments are nowhere near adequate to get final answers.
Not what this book is about though (Score:3, Insightful)
The "quantum mind" idea had, at its base, the concept of some new kind of physics that links quantum mechanics and general relativity together, in a way very different from the supersymmetry/string theory take of recent years: Penrose thinks gravity is more fun
An Interesting Index (Score:5, Interesting)
Hilbert's Problem's (Score:5, Funny)
Have you actually read the book? (Score:3, Informative)
Scattered throughout the book are sections that speculate on Platonism, and half-dead cats, and astronauts orbiting black holes and anthropic principles.
The rest of the book is math. And some of it is hard. Maybe iI was supposed to learn about "Clifford Algebra" from juvenile stories about a Big Red Dog. And maybe, I somehow missed the high school geometry lessons about fiber bundles. Perhaps I've simply forgotten my nursery school lullabies on algebraic topology, but I've found that if you actually read the book for the content, and not for the "mindblowin' shit", it's a tough read. Not impossible, mind you. It's just less literary than Goedel Escher Bach.
Size (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Size (Score:3, Insightful)
FWIW.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I had second thoughts when I saw the hardback price; but I'll probably go for the paperback version.
Penrose's history of trashing AI (Score:3, Interesting)
The ironic thing is that now I very much agree with what he wrote in "The Emperor's New Mind": I have attended enough "Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics" type conferences to finally start to believe in the connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics.
I definitely used to believe in the idea of 'strong AI' on convential computers, but not now.
I don't have time right now to dig up links (it has been a really long work day, and now my wife and I are going to party
-Mark
Re:torn (Score:5, Insightful)
The ideas behind calculus aren't that hard to understand, but teaching them is a skill - most teachers I've seen tend to just explain the ideas then hope sufficient example problems will do their job for them. It's a lot easier if you learn to derive the basics (d/dx, integral around a path, partial differentials etc.) from first principles - it's not that you'll use the first-principles approach ever, but the understanding is worth the learning pain.
To give another datapoint on Physics' needs: I recall my first college term as a physics undergrad - we had a "basic primer" in maths (a 4 week course) which was essentially the 'A' level Further-Mathematics syllabus. Those unfortunates who hadn't done further-maths (about 50% of people) were a bit shell-shocked by the end of the primer course. Once that was out of the way, we got into the meaty stuff that you need for a Physics BSc. Most of us had to work damned hard to grok that - integrating partial differential tensors, residues, integral transforms
I guess the point I'm labouring to say is that some stuff is just complicated - irreduceably so. If you remove the complexity, you remove the understanding and therefore the whole point.
Simon
Parent
Re:torn (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:torn (Score:3, Insightful)
Mathematics pretty much is the language of Physics, unfortunately for many. Without it, you're pretty much limited to explaining concepts metaphorically through analogies to things from everyday life. You can't do that for very long without seriously misrepresenting what it is that you're trying to explain, and of course you'll never communicate any knowledge that can be successfully built upon
Re:If you want to enter the cave, turn to page 125 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If you want to enter the cave, turn to page 125 (Score:3, Funny)
On Slashdot? Probably.
Mathematics is not just another language (Score:3, Insightful)
Maths is the art of finding what must be true within a system often expressed in liguistic form, but whereas a language is a local (though often approximately copied) utilitarian structure that binds meaning together; mathematics is a one-to-one mapping of a structure that is found to be the same by all practicing mathematicians (which is pretty close to objectivity if you ask me) onto an agreed lin
Re:His presentation (Score:3, Insightful)
Take a look at this [norvig.com] and then let me know if you think that powerpoint is really all that....