Not, you understand, that I am a great reader of recipe books even if ravioli is one of my most favourite Italian meals. Frankly, I prefer to eat it than read about it. Even so, were I to read a recipe at least I would be in with a chance of understanding it. Alas, my chances of understanding Snr. Rovelli's latest book lie somewhere between -0.1 and -0.2. And that is a genuine pity because about a year ago I treated myself to a copy of Snr. Rovelli's first book entitled Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, the slimmest of slim books measuring roughly 4" by 7". Given my abysmal understanding of modern physics, that is, 20th century physics because I once vaguely understood all that earlier Law of Levers, heat expansion, gravity and stuff, it was jolly brave of me to try again.
Of course, I blame two people for my ignorance. The first was that mad, old swot, Einstein, who was amongst the first to come up with barmy ideas about energy, mass and the speed of light. The second one to blame is 'the Memsahib'. Her contribution to my scientific ignorance was small but deadly. From time to time I would take down one of the many books I possess that claim to explain Einstein's theories to the irredeemably thick. I would sit quietly, concentrating like mad, and then, just as a glimmer of light flickered in what passes for my brain, a voice would call out asking me what I wanted for supper - or some such! Instantly, the light of understanding guttered out. But then, back in the '80s, I came across another scientific 'fruit 'n' nut case' called Richard Feynman with absurd notions concerning really, really titchy things which actually make up all the really, really BIG things we know about but which behave like loonies on speed! How, I wondered (for about ten micro seconds because my brain started to ache) could the world operate in one way whilst all the things that go to make up the world behave entirely differently?
As I indicated above, Snr. Rovelli's first book being, dare one say, almost sub-atomic in size, provided me with at least half a chance of grasping these contradictory concepts. But now he has come out with a proper BIG book and reading Michael Brooks' review in The New Statesman I may have to give it a pass, er, unless 'SoD' is reading this and decides to be nice to his dear, old Dad at Christmas and buy me a copy! The review opens with a quote from that old loon, Einstein:
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
Er, well, thanks for that, Albert, me old mate, but it is not a promising beginning! However, Mr. Brooks perseveres:
The present challenge to physicists seeking to discover how things really are is to investigate our environment on a scale known as the “Planck length”. Rovelli tries to convey just how small this is. Imagine, he says, a walnut magnified until it is the size of the universe. If we were to magnify the Planck length by that much, we still couldn’t see it. “Even after having been enormously magnified thus, it would still be a million times smaller than the actual walnut shell was before magnification,” he tells us.
Oh God, my brain is aching again! Why do I try to grapple with this stuff? The fact is that to understand even a part of it you have to speak the language - mathematics - and I failed all that bigtime at school. And yet ... and yet ... the fascination remains and like a masochist going back for another lashing, I keep trying. The big test for me will be whether or not I get past page 25!
Reality Is Not What It Seems: the Journey to Quantum Gravity by Carlo Rovelli. Translated by Simon Carnell and Erica Segre is published by Allen Lane (255pp, £16.99)
Well Duffers I am sure yoyu're not alone. I can just about cope with Special Relativity, and with General as far as the concept goes - there are useful didactic models such as the ball bearings circling one another on a rubber sheet which simulates in two dimensions the effect of massive objects on spacetime.
However quantum physics is just silly, counter intuitive nonsense (of course mathematically rigorous). I have a suspicion that as far as this small stuff is concerned we are (or rather they are, because I'm certainly not) roughly where they were in 1904 just before Einsteins bombshell (perhaps an unfortunate choice of word in view of subsequent developments) ie the shortcomings of existing theories is becoming clear but no onw has come up with an elegant or convincing new paradigm.
It will come I am certain, after which there will be more, deeper mysteries.
Amazing stuff really.
Mind you even maths, at the extreme, is a bit stupid, so perhaps incomprehensibility really is where it's at.
Where is SoD when you need him!
Posted by: Cuffleyburgers | Friday, 28 October 2016 at 16:35
I've got a copy of Einstein's 'Relativity: The Special and the General Theory' which is subtitled "A simple explanation that anyone can understand". Unfortunately, I'm only "anyone" to a point, and continue to occasionally re-read some chapters trying to get the ideas. The only moment of insight that put everything in a new perspective was the realization that we are moving through time at the speed of light. Everyone here probably already knows that relativistic effects are a consideration in everyday life when we use GPS.
String theory is suspect to some theoretical physicists because it explains too many things too "easily", which is also hard on self-esteem. One of the more interesting aspects is that the universe might be thought of as a hologram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
Quantum mechanics is completely non-intuitive, but also now a consideration in everyday life. When I was an electrical engineer I had the honor of working with some physicists on the theoretical limits of structures in semiconductor crystalline materials like silicon. When an extremely small hole, in the range of 2-9 microns depending on the exact material, is milled it will sometimes "heal"; that is, close up on its own due to atomic tensions on the crystal lattice. Strange stuff, but real and observable with a field emission microscope.
Posted by: Bob | Friday, 28 October 2016 at 18:33
Guess there aren't any semiconductor physicists in the crowd. I was off by an order of magnitude. It should be .2-.9 microns. Probably should have mentioned solid state lasers as everyday quantum devices too.
Posted by: Bob | Saturday, 29 October 2016 at 00:01
I love physics, especially ballistics, where you know that given the lovely splodey stuff that is in behind the shell that goes in the breach is constant in its delivery of energy. Crank the long tube thingy up to a given angle and voila the shell lands a given distance away where the next lot of splodey stuff does its work as intended.
Must have been a lovely chap that Albert but spent way too much time indoors.
Posted by: AussieD | Saturday, 29 October 2016 at 04:14