Is Road to Reality by Penrose Suitable for Non-Experts?

  • Context: Cosmology 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dsaun777
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Penrose Reality
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the suitability of Roger Penrose's book "Road to Reality" for non-experts, exploring its intended audience, mathematical complexity, and the balance between physics and mathematics presented in the text. Participants share their personal experiences with the book and engage in a broader conversation about its content and implications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the book contains a mix of deep mathematical physics concepts and light explanatory diagrams, suggesting it may not be suitable for those without a college background in physics and math.
  • Another participant compares it to Susskind's "Theoretical Minimum," indicating it is aimed at serious amateur scientists and highlights Penrose's intention to introduce his Spinor ideas.
  • Some participants express that the book is enjoyable for those already familiar with the subject matter but may not serve as an introductory text.
  • There are differing opinions on the quality of the physics content, with some finding it "interesting" while others suggest it is not as strong on quantum mechanics compared to relativity.
  • A humorous exchange occurs regarding Wolfgang Pauli's critique of certain physics arguments, with references to anecdotes about Pauli's interactions with students and their work.
  • Participants discuss the historical context of the Pauli exclusion principle and the contributions of other physicists, raising questions about attribution and recognition in scientific history.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the book's accessibility and content, with no clear consensus on its suitability for non-experts. There are also varying interpretations of Pauli's critiques and the historical anecdotes shared, indicating ongoing debate and uncertainty.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions reference specific historical figures and events related to the development of quantum mechanics, but these anecdotes are not universally agreed upon and lack definitive sources.

dsaun777
Messages
296
Reaction score
39
I recently acquired the tome of Penrose's Road to Reality. I'm trying to figure who this book is intended for. It has a mix of deep mathematical physics concepts with light explanatory diagrams. I have a little bit of a mathematical background, bachelors in math, so I can follow it pretty fluently. But I can't imagine too many people picking up this book without some college background in physics and math. So far the book is very enjoyable for my uses. Anyone else have this book in there library? If so, what is your take on it and what do you think of the level of mathematics?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: smodak, pinball1970 and vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
It’s denser than many pop Sci books of the day. I think it’s for th more serious amateur scientist much as Suskinds Theoretical Minimum but it cam out much earlier.

Also I think Penrose wanted to introduce his Spinor ideas to the public as that seems to be the final section of the book and to break away from the String Theory attempts to be the unifying theory of everything.

Here’s a 2006 book review from the AMS about it:

https://www.ams.org/notices/200606/rev-blank.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier and vanhees71
It's a cool book to read once you already know those areas to see Penrose's take on them and physics in general. It's not really something you can read first in my opinion. Also it's not as good on the quantum side of things as on the Relativity side.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron, martinbn, dextercioby and 1 other person
One of the best books out there in the semi-popular category.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron, smodak, weirdoguy and 1 other person
I liked the math part. The physics is "interesting" (in some parts in Pauli's sense ;-)).
 
vanhees71 said:
The physics is "interesting" (in some parts in Pauli's sense ;-)).
Do you mean not even wrong? 😉
 
vanhees71 said:
I liked the math part. The physics is "interesting" (in some parts in Pauli's sense ;-)).
Pauli who? Wolfgang Pauli? I'm a bit confused
 
You know what it meant when Pauli called some physics argument "interesting"...?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
vanhees71 said:
You know what it meant when Pauli called some physics argument "interesting"...?
I never heard of Pauli saying this hmmm... it doesn't sound like a good thing though :smile:
 
  • #10
I once heard a story about Pauli where he rejected a student paper that had some of the key exclusion principle ideas in it. Sometime later, Pauli published on the Exclusion Principle and when asked about the prior paper said he didn't believe it was true at the time but now he does. Hmm

I don't have a source reference here, I just remember my QM prof telling us this in the context of how two profs Pauli and Ehrenfest (profs may be wrong too) treated their students with Ehrenfest giving more freedom to the student to fail.
 
  • #11
jedishrfu said:
I once heard a story about Pauli where he rejected a student paper that had some of the key exclusion principle ideas in it. Sometime later, Pauli published on the Exclusion Principle and when asked about the prior paper said he didn't believe it was true at the time but now he does. Hmm

I don't have a source reference here, I just remember my QM prof telling us this in the context of how two profs Pauli and Ehrenfest (profs may be wrong too) treated their students with Ehrenfest giving more freedom to the student to fail.
Nightmare scenario for a student. I would have excluded Pauli out of existence.
 
  • #12
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron, dextercioby and jedishrfu
  • #13
vanhees71 said:
You know what it meant when Pauli called some physics argument "interesting"...?
I don't, what?
 
  • #14
jedishrfu said:
I once heard a story about Pauli where he rejected a student paper that had some of the key exclusion principle ideas in it. Sometime later, Pauli published on the Exclusion Principle and when asked about the prior paper said he didn't believe it was true at the time but now he does. Hmm

I don't have a source reference here, I just remember my QM prof telling us this in the context of how two profs Pauli and Ehrenfest (profs may be wrong too) treated their students with Ehrenfest giving more freedom to the student to fail.
I know this story about Kramers's idea of spin-1/2 particles. After Pauli's critique he didn't publish it. Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck did.

There's also a nasty story about Born, forgetting Jordan's manuscript on what we call Fermi-Dirac statistics today in his suitcase traveling to the US.
 
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
  • #15
jedishrfu said:
I once heard a story about Pauli where he rejected a student paper that had some of the key exclusion principle ideas in it. Sometime later, Pauli published on the Exclusion Principle and when asked about the prior paper said he didn't believe it was true at the time but now he does. Hmm

I don't have a source reference here, I just remember my QM prof telling us this in the context of how two profs Pauli and Ehrenfest (profs may be wrong too) treated their students with Ehrenfest giving more freedom to the student to fail.

The student was Stoner, who was Rutherford's (post)grad student at Cambridge (not Pauli's student). Stoner's results were not rejected for publication, i.e.,

Stoner, E. C. , “The distribution of electrons among atomic levels”, Philosophical magazine, xlvii (1924), 719–36

The question is: Is this enough to say that the exclusion principle should be attributed to Stoner?
 
  • #16
George Jones said:
The student was Stoner, who was Rutherford's (post)grad student at Cambridge (not Pauli's student). Stoner's results were not rejected for publication, i.e.,

Stoner, E. C. , “The distribution of electrons among atomic levels”, Philosophical magazine, xlvii (1924), 719–36

The question is: Is this enough to say that the exclusion principle should be attributed to Stoner?
He should be acknowledged alongside Pauli, it sounds cooler the Stoner-Pauli Exclusion Principle!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron and jedishrfu
  • #18
vanhees71 said:
I liked the math part. The physics is "interesting" (in some parts in Pauli's sense ;-)).
Which parts?
 
  • #19
George Jones said:
The student was Stoner,
:DD
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
10K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
4K