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

In summary, the conversation discusses the book "Penrose's Road to Reality" and its target audience, which includes individuals with a strong background in mathematics and physics. The book is praised for its in-depth coverage of mathematical concepts and its unique perspective on physics, but some criticize its treatment of quantum physics. The conversation also touches on stories about famous physicists such as Pauli and Born, and their interactions with students and their contributions to the field.
  • #1
dsaun777
293
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 smodak, pinball1970 and vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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 Demystifier and vanhees71
  • #3
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 Klystron, martinbn, dextercioby and 1 other person
  • #4
One of the best books out there in the semi-popular category.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron, smodak, weirdoguy and 1 other person
  • #5
I liked the math part. The physics is "interesting" (in some parts in Pauli's sense ;-)).
 
  • #6
vanhees71 said:
The physics is "interesting" (in some parts in Pauli's sense ;-)).
Do you mean not even wrong? 😉
 
  • #7
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
 
  • #8
You know what it meant when Pauli called some physics argument "interesting"...?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes Demystifier
  • #9
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 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 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 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 Demystifier

1. What is "Road To Reality" by Penrose?

"Road To Reality" is a book written by physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of the laws of physics and the universe.

2. Who is the target audience for this book?

The book is intended for anyone with a basic understanding of mathematics and physics, but it can also be enjoyed by those with a more advanced background in these subjects.

3. How does "Road To Reality" differ from other popular science books?

Unlike most popular science books, "Road To Reality" does not shy away from complex mathematical concepts. It delves into the mathematical foundations of physics, making it a more challenging read but also providing a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

4. Is "Road To Reality" suitable for self-study?

Yes, the book is designed to be self-contained and can be used for self-study. However, it is recommended to have some background knowledge in mathematics and physics to fully grasp the concepts presented.

5. What are some criticisms of "Road To Reality"?

Some readers have found the book to be too dense and difficult to understand, especially for those without a strong background in mathematics. Additionally, some have criticized Penrose's theories and ideas presented in the book as being controversial and not fully accepted by the scientific community.

Similar threads

  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
28
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
2
Views
574
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
10
Views
3K
Back
Top