Slashdot Mirror
Roger Penrose and the Road to Reality
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.
Is this the same Roger Penrose that patented a pattern (The Penrose Tile) and then sued a toilet paper company for having a similar pattern printed on their toilet paper?
:)
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
Dada Mail - Program, Art Project or Absurdity?
I saw him when he came to Seattle recently. It was hard to believe that he wrote such a book, especially after he gave the most disorganized presentation that I've ever seen. Nevertheless, I got an autographed copy.
☠
I read that book too - I would assert than more than geeks would dig it - musicians of course and visual artists.
Would love to get my hands on a similar book that's just as engaging;
Dada Mail - Program, Art Project or Absurdity?
If you liked GEB, you'll like Penrose's older book The Emperor's New Mind. It's a fascinating read, even if you don't accept his final conclusion that human brains are quantum computers.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Does anyone have an informed opinion on its failings?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I'm gonna go pick this one up ASAP! I've been looking for something readable, yet fully useable in light of how much I gained in the desire to learn more of mathematics and physics from Brian Green's The Elegant Universe. Unfortunately, I haven't come across anything nearly as beautifully written as Brian Greene's work yet. This book review makes this book sound downright fun for the nerd in me!
GEB was mentioned above, and I just had to post about it.. It's one of the best books I've ever read. If you've never read it and you're a geek, and at all interested in how the mind works, you'll absolutely love it. I've read it three times, and the last time I even almost understood the whole thing.. :)
It's an absolute classic, I can't recommend it highly enough.
Feh. It's overhyped. If you read it when you're a 12-15 year old, yes, the ideas will seem new and interesting.
Once you've hit 20, and have been programming (and thus doing logical and critical thinking for a good five years), there's little that's novel or interesting in GEB: just straightforward concepts, flung together and dumbed down for the masses. In general, concepts that could be presented in a sentence take a paragraph, those that should take a paragraph take a page, and those that should take a page take a chapter.
Godel's theorem is well-known to anyone with even a basic mathematical background, and popular outside of that culture. The old "what would this sentence look like if PI were three shtick" gets old for most geeks at 16-17. It's the quaint little speculative sci-fi mind games all of us played, and grew out of years ago.
The book is little more than geek pablum; good for the kids, but there's nothing there for adults to sink their minds into. It's all been stated more concisely and thoroughly elsewhere, and most geeks will have learned it all anyway by their early twenties, at the latest.
I don't see why it's hyped so much on slashdot: then again, the 15 year old script kiddies seem pretty common here these days. If you're a kid, then yes, it probably does seem new and interesting. To us adults, it's old news.
--
AC
Last summer I read a clutch of books attempting to define life. After reading Sex and the Origins of Death by W.C. Clark, I decided to restrict my readings to authors born in the 1930's. I did this because people of this generation seemed to be in a position to sum up a lifetime of scientific investigations in their respective field. Sir R. Penrose is coeval with people of this age group and I suspect his book represents a unique opportunity to review Physics as his generation came to know it. Younger authors, like Lee Smolin might better present the bleeding edge.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
I'd say you grossly underrate the importance of GEB. It's not supposed to be a manual for CS majors or math geeks.
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 greater punch in an open mind than an entire year of high school. And that's why popular science is so incredibly important. What's the point in doing basic science if nobody but you cares?
Tired of fundamentalist science haters? Dumb follow-the-leader sheep? Then do something, educate them!
Also, if you happened to be a molecular bioligist or some such, don't you think you gain something by reading a text meant for non-cognitive scientists? You couldn't if it was a full-blown textbook from a field you never studied...
</rant>
I bought his book "The Emperor's New Mind" in 1990 because it was rumored to be an argument for why conventional computers could not 'do real AI' - I wanted to read something that cut across the grain of my own beliefs.
:-) but search for "Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics" for interesting reading material.
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
Somewhere, perhaps in a paper from the Santa Fe Institute, I read an exchange between a physicist and an economist. The economist derided the physicist saying that a career in physics did not last much beyond the physicist's 30th year. The economist went on to ask the physicist what he'll do after his 30th birthday. The physicist replied he'd likely become an economist
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
One of the riposte for the quantum-brain theory is that of MRI/PET scans on the brain - apparently that messes up the quantum states. However, your memory and emotions remain intact - indicating that perhaps the functioning of your brain is quantum-independent.
How do you defend your theory against that?
He does.
Including toilet paper. http://parascope.com/articles/slips/fs_151.htm
So I'll be putting the damn thing aside until I've gotten through some hyperbolic geometry courses and algebra. The writing is clear and enjoyable, the contents get my noodle in a knot.