Reviews
Visatos grožis: Mėginimas suvokti pasaulio prigimtį by Juozas Vidmantis Vaitkus, Frank Wilczek
emsemsems's review against another edition
4.0
‘Electrons are described by space-filling fields—their wave functions—which prefer to vary smoothly and gently. They settle into specific standing wave patterns, or “orbitals,” that find an optimal compromise between the attraction of nuclei and their natural wanderlust. I like to imagine electrons explaining themselves to nuclei this way:
“I find you attractive, but I need my space.”’
It is not as ‘meaty’ (in terms of the ‘science’/mathematical bits) as I would have liked/preferred, but it is surely a highly entertaining book; very engaging writing, for sure. Or as readers who prefer light-er reading of pop. science books would say, highly 'readable' (I cringe a little at the term, but it is so fitting). I’ve heard/read that his more recent publication, [b:Fundamentals: Ten Keys to Reality|53398908|Fundamentals Ten Keys to Reality|Frank Wilczek|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1606104694l/53398908._SY75_.jpg|80085680] is quite ‘good’ too. And having read this, I don’t doubt the rave reviews.
‘—Salvador Dalí used dodecahedral symbolism to express a cosmic connection that might otherwise be hard to put on canvas. We’ve also found a dodecahedron lurking within every one of the infinite variety of buckminsterfullerenes, where its twelve pentagons serve as enablers, allowing the hexagons of graphene to close up into a surface—The dodecahedron is a thing of beauty, and by now it’s become a familiar friend.’
‘To me, Caravaggio’s rendering conveys two profound messages that go beyond the words of the gospel’s text—Those who believe without seeing are blessed with the joy of certainty. But it is a fragile certainty, and a hollow joy—Those whose faith is not passive, but engages reality, will receive a second, more fulfilling blessing in the harmony of belief and experience. Blessed are those who believe what they see.’
‘Supersymmetry was (and is) a beautiful mathematical theory. The problem with applying supersymmetry is that it is too good for this world. It predicts new particles—lots of them. We have not seen, so far, the particles it predicts. We do not see, for example, particles with the same charge and mass as electrons, yet are bosons instead of fermions.’
‘Spontaneous symmetry breaking is a strategy for having our supersymmetric cake and eating it too. If we are successful, we can apply beautiful (supersymmetric) equations to describe a less beautiful (asymmetric—or should we say subsupersymmetric?) reality. Specifically, when an electron steps into the quantum dimension, its mass will change—At the frontiers of ignorance, applications of spontaneous symmetry breaking involve creative guesswork. You must guess a symmetry that isn’t visible in the world, put it into your equations, and show that the world—or, more realistically, some aspect of the world you’re trying to explain—pops out of its stable solutions.’
‘In beauty we trust, when making our theories, but their “cash value” depends on other factors. Truth is highly desirable, but it is not the only, or even the most important, criterion. Newton’s mechanics (centred on conservation of mass) and his theory of colours (centred on conservation of spectral types), for example, are not strictly true, yet they are hugely valuable theories. Fertility—a theory’s ability to predict new phenomena, and give us power over Nature—is also a big part of the equation.
Trust in beauty has often, in the past, paid off. Newton’s theory of gravity was challenged by the orbit of Uranus, which did not obey its predictions. Urbain Le Verrier, and also John Couch Adams, trusting in the beauty of the theory, were led to propose the existence of a new planet, not yet observed, whose influence might be responsible. Their calculations told astronomers where to look, and led to the discovery of Neptune.
Maxwell’s great synthesis, as we’ve seen, predicted new colours of light, invisible to our eyes, but also not yet observed. Trusting in the beauty of the theory, Hertz both produced and observed radio waves. In more recent times, Paul Dirac predicted, through a strange and beautiful equation, the existence of antiparticles, which had not yet been observed, but soon thereafter were. The Core, anchored in symmetry, gave us colour gluons, W and Z particles, the Higgs particle, the charmed quark, and the particles of the third family all as predictions prior to their observation.
But there have been failures too. Plato’s theory of atoms and Kepler’s model of the Solar System were beautiful theories that, as descriptions of Nature, utterly failed. Another was Kelvin’s theory of atoms, which proposed that they are knots of activity in the ether. (Knots come in different forms, and they are not easily undone, so they have, it might seem, the right stuff to make atoms.)
Those “failures” were not without fruit: Plato’s theory inspired deeper study of geometry and symmetry, Kepler’s model inspired his great career in astronomy, and Kelvin’s model inspired Peter Tait to develop the theory of mathematical knots, which remains a vibrant subject today—but as theories of the physical world they are hopelessly wrong.’
heidi_'s review against another edition
5.0
Does the world embody beautiful ideas? Absolutely.
Marvelous tour of fundamental physics concepts through the lens of intuitive harmony. I didn't realize the idealism inherent to so many scientific endeavors which deliberately attempt to simplify natural realities into symmetrical equations — this deeply human motivation is beauty in and of itself.
As someone who has struggled to conceptualize many of the concepts mentioned, I greatly appreciated having them broken down in layman's terms, strung together by overarching aesthetic principles. Wilczek's explanation of Core Theory (The Standard Model) in terms of yin and yang makes so much more sense to my abstract mind than a more concrete explanation ever could.
I became so engrossed in this centuries-long trial and error mission that by the final chapter on supersymmetry, I audibly gasped at the ramifications of such a unifying concept. Even if it is later shown to be empirically false, its fertility for further study will surely prove fruitful. What an exciting time to live through, when we are able to entertain the possibilities of a great unifying force underlying the structure of (nearly) all things. A sacred discovery is in the making!
I most enjoyed the sections which referenced subjectivity and complementarity, given how easily they can be applied beyond the realm of the natural sciences.
"[B]y understanding how the same scene can appear different, depending on the viewpoint from which it is perceived, we learn to separate the accidents of viewpoint from the properties of the thing itself. By treating subjectivity objectively, we master it."
Here, we have the perspective needed to fully grasp what our individual limitations do not allow, be they the vanishing point of a landscape or the intentions of someone we interact with. Wilczek routinely references the universality of his themes, concluding in the last pages, "complementarity is a wisdom we rediscover, and confirm, both in the physical world and beyond."
Thank you to On Being, the holy grail of podcasts, for bringing me to this refreshing read.
Marvelous tour of fundamental physics concepts through the lens of intuitive harmony. I didn't realize the idealism inherent to so many scientific endeavors which deliberately attempt to simplify natural realities into symmetrical equations — this deeply human motivation is beauty in and of itself.
As someone who has struggled to conceptualize many of the concepts mentioned, I greatly appreciated having them broken down in layman's terms, strung together by overarching aesthetic principles. Wilczek's explanation of Core Theory (The Standard Model) in terms of yin and yang makes so much more sense to my abstract mind than a more concrete explanation ever could.
I became so engrossed in this centuries-long trial and error mission that by the final chapter on supersymmetry, I audibly gasped at the ramifications of such a unifying concept. Even if it is later shown to be empirically false, its fertility for further study will surely prove fruitful. What an exciting time to live through, when we are able to entertain the possibilities of a great unifying force underlying the structure of (nearly) all things. A sacred discovery is in the making!
I most enjoyed the sections which referenced subjectivity and complementarity, given how easily they can be applied beyond the realm of the natural sciences.
"[B]y understanding how the same scene can appear different, depending on the viewpoint from which it is perceived, we learn to separate the accidents of viewpoint from the properties of the thing itself. By treating subjectivity objectively, we master it."
Here, we have the perspective needed to fully grasp what our individual limitations do not allow, be they the vanishing point of a landscape or the intentions of someone we interact with. Wilczek routinely references the universality of his themes, concluding in the last pages, "complementarity is a wisdom we rediscover, and confirm, both in the physical world and beyond."
Thank you to On Being, the holy grail of podcasts, for bringing me to this refreshing read.
neelchainz's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
The messages and concepts in this book are intriguing and fascinating. However, the language with which the book is written made it much harder to read for me and is why I gave the book this rating. Wilczek attempts to be poetic, but to me, it comes across as excessively flowery, confusing, and roundabout. This may be meaningful criticism, though, because how else could he have conveyed such complex ideas to a general audience? Regardless of the writing, this book presents so many incredible ideas that are fundamental to the world and I enjoyed reading about them. The most frustrating thing is that while this book was a great introduction to many topics for me, I like to have a deeper understanding of scientific ideas that I couldn't get out of the book. That's on me, not the book.
cwgk85's review against another edition
1.0
This book (styled as a "meditation" by the author) aims to answer a single question: does the universe embody beautiful concepts? And while I readily agree with Wilczek's answer (yes! Undoubtedly, yes!), his explanation of why leaves much to be desired. The opening chapters dealing with Pythagoras and Plato were an entertaining read to be sure but the book quickly descends into a quagmire of theoretical physics crossed with quasi-philosophical pondering. Wilczek continually uses flowery, poetical language as an attempt (I think) to sound profound but it serves only to obfuscate the science he is trying to explain.
The back jacket of the hardcover edition includes a laudatory quote from Deepak Chopra. I should have seen that as a warning....
The back jacket of the hardcover edition includes a laudatory quote from Deepak Chopra. I should have seen that as a warning....
danirc_'s review against another edition
so many logical leaps and assumptions about fields the author clearly knows nothing about (like music) to support his conclusions. poorly researched
spav's review against another edition
4.0
A great quest to answer the question "Does the world embody beautiful ideas?".
Some chapters seemed messy, but picked up towards the end with great explanations of symmetry, the core theory and, specifically the Higgs field (perhaps one of the best explanations I have read of it)
Overall great book and very well layered for all different types of physics connoisseurs.
Some chapters seemed messy, but picked up towards the end with great explanations of symmetry, the core theory and, specifically the Higgs field (perhaps one of the best explanations I have read of it)
Overall great book and very well layered for all different types of physics connoisseurs.
ashcomb's review against another edition
4.0
The question is, does beauty exist in nature or more so in physics? Frank Wilczek sets to prove it by looking through mathematical, physical, and philosophical theories about the world, starting from Plato and Pythagoras and ending up with his and his colleagues’ postulations about supersymmetry. I’m not sure if to give you an answer or a tip on what beauty means (there, now all of you got it instantly,) as Wilczek gives away the plot in the first pages, but I guess for the sake of tension, I leave it for you to find out.
I have complex feelings about this book. While it clarifies so much and the writer’s arguments are eloquent, there are also places I get lost, and I suddenly have read several pages with no comprehension. There are two reasons for this: the concepts expressed differ in their complexity. First, when we get to the nitty-gritty of atomic level and quantum theories with their Creek symbols, the simplicity of the explanations is lost. Understandable. But to argue, there are places where Wilczek uses metaphors to explain the whole concept in one sentence, and you are like, “Yeah, I understand now.” This is especially true in the sections handling color, vibration, and photons and how music fits into the picture. Second, the language of the book varies greatly, making reading a confusing experience. You spend hundreds of pages with the writer removed as an actor, and suddenly, we jump into his children and marvel at the cosmos. This contradiction and jumping around happens inside the chapters as well, suddenly changing from physics to philosophy, forcing you to stop and ponder why the jump was made, sometimes without an obvious answer.
What I also found very confusing was that I thought I had formed a coherent idea of the quantum world and physics through simple reads like Carlo Rovelli’s Reality is Not What it Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity, and as I read this book, suddenly it was all gone, and I was back lost in this universe without comprehension of the physical reality which governs me. I’m not sure if it is just my brain that finds competing explanations with slight differences in how and what theories are stressed distributive? All this makes me feel stupid and as if someone had sneaked in to steal what I already knew and leave a note saying, “sorry, not compatible.” And then I think that maybe the scientists are not so out of Plato’s cave, and actually, I’m caught between competing explanations and no sides make that clear to the laymen like me, and in my case leaves me lot confused and believing someone indeed stole information out of my brain. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the book—just my ruminations about the failings of my mind and comprehending the book in its entirety.
Still, I love reading books about physics and the quantum world, as always some new aspect will reveal itself and stick with me. From this book, I take with me the image of atoms as musical instruments played by photons.
I have complex feelings about this book. While it clarifies so much and the writer’s arguments are eloquent, there are also places I get lost, and I suddenly have read several pages with no comprehension. There are two reasons for this: the concepts expressed differ in their complexity. First, when we get to the nitty-gritty of atomic level and quantum theories with their Creek symbols, the simplicity of the explanations is lost. Understandable. But to argue, there are places where Wilczek uses metaphors to explain the whole concept in one sentence, and you are like, “Yeah, I understand now.” This is especially true in the sections handling color, vibration, and photons and how music fits into the picture. Second, the language of the book varies greatly, making reading a confusing experience. You spend hundreds of pages with the writer removed as an actor, and suddenly, we jump into his children and marvel at the cosmos. This contradiction and jumping around happens inside the chapters as well, suddenly changing from physics to philosophy, forcing you to stop and ponder why the jump was made, sometimes without an obvious answer.
What I also found very confusing was that I thought I had formed a coherent idea of the quantum world and physics through simple reads like Carlo Rovelli’s Reality is Not What it Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity, and as I read this book, suddenly it was all gone, and I was back lost in this universe without comprehension of the physical reality which governs me. I’m not sure if it is just my brain that finds competing explanations with slight differences in how and what theories are stressed distributive? All this makes me feel stupid and as if someone had sneaked in to steal what I already knew and leave a note saying, “sorry, not compatible.” And then I think that maybe the scientists are not so out of Plato’s cave, and actually, I’m caught between competing explanations and no sides make that clear to the laymen like me, and in my case leaves me lot confused and believing someone indeed stole information out of my brain. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the book—just my ruminations about the failings of my mind and comprehending the book in its entirety.
Still, I love reading books about physics and the quantum world, as always some new aspect will reveal itself and stick with me. From this book, I take with me the image of atoms as musical instruments played by photons.
tcranenj's review against another edition
5.0
Maybe the best book I read this year. Starting with the simple question, "Does the world contain beautiful ideas?", Wilczek takes the reader on a tour of philosophy,art and (of course) physics. Certainly not an easy read for a popular science book, A Beautiful Question does not pull too many scientific punches while it addresses its fundamental premise. In the world of science fiction, there is a sub-genre called hard sci-fi. In the world of popular science books, this one would be hard popular science. Good, meaty stuff.