Scan barcode
sara_shocks's review against another edition
3.0
Great/terrible book to read while congested & doped up on medication
gemmamilne's review against another edition
4.0
This is a fab read if you’re wanting a popular science book focused on physics which gives you that bit more than just an explanation of dark matter, particle physics and the theories of the universe.
Hossenfelder does all that, and also writes about why physics isn’t really moving forward. She talks about how the beauty that mathematical structures at the heart of theorems have - and the search for this beauty - is clouding physicists from really looking at the data in front of them, and thus this misguided approach to new physics is holding everyone back.
As someone who studied pure maths (and is therefore alllllllll about the beauty in maths) I thought I’d read this pretty defensively, but Hossenfelder’s arguments, wit and hopeful(ish) perspective about what a revolution in physics research would mean won me over. (About physics that is, not about pure maths
Hossenfelder does all that, and also writes about why physics isn’t really moving forward. She talks about how the beauty that mathematical structures at the heart of theorems have - and the search for this beauty - is clouding physicists from really looking at the data in front of them, and thus this misguided approach to new physics is holding everyone back.
As someone who studied pure maths (and is therefore alllllllll about the beauty in maths) I thought I’d read this pretty defensively, but Hossenfelder’s arguments, wit and hopeful(ish) perspective about what a revolution in physics research would mean won me over. (About physics that is, not about pure maths
bmadisonw's review against another edition
challenging
slow-paced
2.0
This book seems uncertain who its audience is. Rather than starting with an overview of particle physics as currently understood and theories in vogue, the author immediately jumps into proving her thesis of how the desire for beauty, simplicity, and symmetry in the mathematics that underlie supersymmetry, quantum theory, and multiverse assertions breed bad science. If you‘ve never been introduced to these theories, or to the standard model of physics and both general and special relativity, you‘ll be completely lost from the jump. Even if you have some cursory knowledge of these topics, you‘ll likely find it initially hard to follow.
Hossenfelder eventually explains the basics, but waits until halfway though the book, at which point most readers will have justifiably quit reading. Her premise is intriguing, if you can make it through the rambling self-doubt and meandering interviews she conducts with top physicists. For those who don‘t want to, here‘s the gist: why do physicists insist that the laws of physics must conform to human ideals of beautiful, symmetrical math? What makes them so nervous about really big and really small numbers, or anything much different than 1? Is science hitting a slippery slope where the internal consistency of a theory is more important than actually proving it with experimental evidence? When particle colliders continuously fail to produce results predicted by theories, at what point should physicists accept “just so,“ stop building, or invent a better theory? Just questions, no answers.
bupdaddy's review against another edition
5.0
Honestly, I don't know enough physics to be able to say how far off into the woods theoretical physics has gotten, but this book is an important voice. A course on biases should be required for anyone in a hard- or social-science field.
walden2ite's review against another edition
4.0
This was a fascinating book, with a lot of good questions and concerns about how theoretical physics is currently being practiced. It also raises more issues around biases and the current reward structures in academic science. My only complaint is about the structure of the book; I believe a different layout would have flowed much better, but I still highly recommend reading it.
bozonio's review against another edition
4.0
The book makes some really good points about modern theoretical physics. It identifies core issues with the concepts of naturalness, simplicity and “beauty”. Even more importantly issues about how theories become popular, who works on what and what gets funded. These are all things we should talk about and they are exposed in an honest direct way. There are interviews with both famous theoretical physicists and those that work on the fringes of the field. It reads fast and easily without being superficial. I would like a longer “what to do” chapter with positive examples especially since those appear often at the “backreaction” blog.
What I didn’t like about the book was that it felt that it wasn’t sure what audience it was made for. For a large part it read as an internal discussion, meant for theoretical physicists or at least physicists. Then suddenly and often as a footnote, there was a layperson explanation of what a quark is or what we mean by action. As a theoretical physicist the book was very interesting to me and these short interludes of explanations were not that distracting. However I am not sure how non-physicists approach it. I can see how it can appear confusing or give the wrong impression to someone that is far from the field. I would prefer a just-physicist version that would go deeper but I can see how that might not have been a viable option.
What I didn’t like about the book was that it felt that it wasn’t sure what audience it was made for. For a large part it read as an internal discussion, meant for theoretical physicists or at least physicists. Then suddenly and often as a footnote, there was a layperson explanation of what a quark is or what we mean by action. As a theoretical physicist the book was very interesting to me and these short interludes of explanations were not that distracting. However I am not sure how non-physicists approach it. I can see how it can appear confusing or give the wrong impression to someone that is far from the field. I would prefer a just-physicist version that would go deeper but I can see how that might not have been a viable option.
lyleblosser's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting take on the frustrations physicists are beginning to feel with the current state of theorizing based on "naturalness" and "beauty", and the recent lack of progress in the field. Have they really cast aside the scientific method? What is to be done about this? The author illuminates these and other questions by interviewing leading members of the theoretical physics community.
joseph_nevnev's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
sisyphista's review against another edition
4.0
If Hossenfelder's later 'Existential Physics' is written for the science-curious, her earlier 'Lost in Math' is aimed squarely at scientists themselves. A comprehensive critique of psuedo-scientific ideals creeping into the scientific method, 'Lost in Math' makes for a good read. Still, its higher skill floor meant I was--on more than one occasion--genuinely lost in the math.