Who Is 'Road to Reality' Written For?

[etotheipi]

Someone mentioned this book to me, and when I searched for it I saw some people describing it as a 'pop-sci' sort of book. But looking at the contents would suggest it's definitely not introductory, and in fact, quite the opposite (I don't know of any 'pop-sci books' that decide to launch into fibre bundles or quantum algebra or twistors... )

I wanted to ask, who is this actually for, and is it worth looking at? And, given it's so massive, are some parts of it more useful than others?

Just thought it looked interesting not least since it's written by such a brilliant mind.

 

[Frabjous]

Pick a later chapter that you sort of know and read it. If it works for you, read the rest of the book. It didn’t work for me.

 

[etotheipi]

In principle that would work, but it would rely upon already having bought it

 

[berkeman]

In principle that would work, but it would rely upon already having bought it

Can you get it temporarily via inter-library loan?

 

[etotheipi]

Don't think so man, I could if I were in college but since we're stuck at home for a little while longer probably not for a few weeks

 

[berkeman]

Don't think so man, I could if I were in college but since we're stuck at home for a little while longer probably not for a few weeks

Hmm, I wonder if your local library could work with your uni library somehow to make it happen. Does your local library have curbside pickup at least?

 

[Klystron]

I rather enjoyed reading "Road to Reality" while studying Penrose as part of updating my physics knowledge years ago. If memory serves, I read through chapter 15 before having to return the book to the public library.

"Road" remains a fixture in the library's Mathematics-Physics section. I last borrowed a copy and re-read some chapters while following the Differential Geometry forum on PF. Students mentioned being assigned Penrose as a textbook. Better, perhaps, as adjunct reading depending on the utility of twistors. Penrose's ideas mature from edition I to edition VI, the last edition I have read, IMS.

I suspect describing "Road" as pop-sci leads to condescending elitism. I regard Roger Penrose as an accessible but solid STEM writer but science changes. Would critics be more comfortable with impenetrable prose aimed at a miniscule audience?

 

[wrobel]

Unfortunately Professor Penrose is mixing up with some Russian crackpots and pseudo scientists. Perhaps I should not have posted it here.

 

[phyzguy]

It's definitely not pop-sci. It is solid science for an educated layman audience. Penrose has done some questionable stuff in recent years, but Road to Reality was written in 2004. I think it is an excellent introduction to a broad range of topics in mathematical physics.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I personally hate reading pop sci. This was a bit better, but as someone coming in who didn't know the material that well it was hard to follow along at more than just the level of pop sci, so I gave up on it pretty quick. I can see how it would be useful to some people to read.

 

[hutchphd]

There is a pretty extensive "sneak peek" at Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0679776311/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[wrobel]

sometimes pop sci implicitly carries an ideology and propaganda

 

[Demystifier]

It's semi-popular. It's for casual reading by professional physicists and mathematicians.

 

[PeroK]

I suspect describing "Road" as pop-sci leads to condescending elitism. I regard Roger Penrose as an accessible but solid STEM writer but science changes. Would critics be more comfortable with impenetrable prose aimed at a miniscule audience?

Speaking of condescending elitism, it's minuscule, surely?

 

[martinbn]

I wonder how many people have read the book? Obviously at least one, but who has the time to go through the whole thing. I have read parts from it and I did like it. But i wouldn't think that it is good to learn from it new concepts. It is probably good to have seen those things before. This way you can also read the chapters in the order you like. Anyway it is probably best for you to decide for yourself.

 

[Demystifier]

I wonder how many people have read the book?

I've skipped some parts, but actually read at least about 80%.

 

[phyzguy]

I wonder how many people have read the book? Obviously at least one, but who has the time to go through the whole thing. I have read parts from it and I did like it. But i wouldn't think that it is good to learn from it new concepts. It is probably good to have seen those things before. This way you can also read the chapters in the order you like. Anyway it is probably best for you to decide for yourself.

I would agree with this. I confess I didn't read all of it - probably about 75%. I had seen many of the concepts before, and this book really helped tie things together.

 

[Klystron]

Speaking of condescending elitism, it's minuscule, surely?

Sure. Yet here in the high desert, we oft' harken to 19^th Centuryhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miniscule. According to Merriam-Webster:

The adjective minuscule is etymologically related to minus, but associations with mini- have produced the spelling variant miniscule. This variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error.

Either that, else I am a persistent fan of Austin Powers.

 

[weirdoguy]

I wonder how many people have read the book?

Well, I've read it (fully) in 2012 while I was writing my bachelor thesis on some topological invariants of 3-manifolds connected with quantum gravity. Penrose wrote a short chapter about spin networks and since I needed to learn something about this topic I thought it would be a good idea to read whole book I want to read it again in the near future, my knowledge increased drasticly since 2012 so I guess it will be easier this time. But nevertheless, I liked it even then.

 

[andresB]

I read it back in my undergrad days. It started quite nicely, but I quickly hit a huge mathematical wall. I don't know if nowadays I would understand it better, but it was certainly not an easy read and more than surely it was not aimed to laymen.

I recommend just to keep reading and learning from standard textbooks.

 

[pinball1970]

Someone mentioned this book to me, and when I searched for it I saw some people describing it as a 'pop-sci' sort of book. But looking at the contents would suggest it's definitely not introductory, and in fact, quite the opposite (I don't know of any 'pop-sci books' that decide to launch into fibre bundles or quantum algebra or twistors... )

I wanted to ask, who is this actually for, and is it worth looking at? And, given it's so massive, are some parts of it more useful than others?

Just thought it looked interesting not least since it's written by such a brilliant mind.

Get the book and give it a go.

I have read pop science books and for me as layman RTR is not that.

 

[gmax137]

I quickly hit a huge mathematical wall.

Me too. I remember flipping back and forth, trying to remember what "diffeomorphism" was, compared to "isomorphism" or "homeomorphism." One night I put it down, about 200 pages in, and never picked it back up.

 

[berkeman]

One night I put it down, about 200 pages in, and never picked it back up.

Maybe @etotheipi would pay shipping for you to send it to him...

 

[gmax137]

Maybe @etotheipi would pay shipping for you to send it to him...

I had the same thought.

@etotheipi -- Let me know. I can't ship it for a couple weeks, my books are packed in boxes while some renovations are going on.

 

[etotheipi]

Awww that's kind of you! It's okay though, I have access to it now

A few comments, just having read a little bit of chapter 13; I didn't expect it to have so many words in it, haha. Quite dense and a little bit difficult to read.

Also I hadn't realized until now, but the title "road to reality" makes it sound like some sort of spiritual handbook or guide to recreational marijuana... I'm not sure that was the intended interpretation?

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Awww that's kind of you! It's okay though, I have access to it now

A few comments, just having read a little bit of chapter 13; I didn't expect it to have so many words in it, haha. Quite dense and a little bit difficult to read.

Also I hadn't realized until now, but the title "road to reality" makes it sound like some sort of spiritual handbook or guide to recreational marijuana... I'm not sure that was the intended interpretation?

Well some might need marijuana to read this book in its entirety...

The colours... (disclaimer: I never used illegal drugs, only legal drugs!).

 

[AndreasC]

I've looked at it, and it's kind of odd. You could describe it as pop sci, in the sense that you don't have to know much about physics to read it, although you do need some basic background. Basically if you're out of high school and remember the stuff you learned there, you can read it. I guess it is kind of similar to the Theoretical Minimum books in terms of difficulty but more unusual in the choice of subject.

In order to be as approachable as it is, it treats mathematics "descriptively". It doesn't show you how to solve exercises or show you many proofs etc, it just shows you the mathematical concepts and it says "here's what this means, here's where we use it".

I guess it is kind of between a pop sci text and a textbook, except it goes well beyond undergrad physics in subject matter.

Also, there's a little secret for previewing books you can't access, but I don't think I can say it here ;)