Status
Available
Publication
Bollati Boringhieri (2018), 136 pagine
Description
Ideas in Profile: Small Introductions to Big Topics Physicist Frank Close takes the reader to the frontiers of science in a vividly told investigation of revolutionary science and enterprise from the seventeenth century to the present. He looks at what has been meant by theories of everything, explores the scientific breakthroughs they have allowed, and shows the far-reaching effects they have had on crucial aspects of life and belief. Theories of everything, he argues, can be described as those which draw on all relevant branches of knowledge to explain everything known about the universe. Such accounts may reign supreme for centuries. Then, often as a result of the advances they themselves have enabled, a new discovery is made which the current theory cannot explain. A new theory is needed which inspiration, sometimes, supplies. Moving from Isaac Newton's work on gravity and motion in the seventeenth century to thermodynamics and James Clerk Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism in the nineteenth to Max Planck's and Paul Dirac's quantum physics in the twentieth, Professor Close turns finally to contemporary physics and the power and limitations of the current theory of everything. The cycle in which one theory of everything is first challenged and then replaced by another is continuing right now.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member antao
I’ve got a theory that the rules of the universe ARE created by people thinking up theories about it. Although due to elitism bias, i am yet to receive any funding for my groundbreaking “hypothesis.” Fucking scientist bastards, getting paid for thinking about stuff they think I can’t
I suspect that a lot of the hostility and rejection of science by people who can't understand it is because it makes them feel stupid. It is, after all, fundamental to understanding how the world works. Some people are scientists; some people are not, but know what science is; but some people not only don't understand science, but don't know that they don't know, because they can't even see it. This is a bit analogous to being able to read. Some can go into a library and read in a few languages, some only in one, others can know what books are but not be able to read, and some don't actually know what books are and feel stupid, so pretend that they either don't exist or are some sort of conspiracy against them, which makes them feel important. There are theories around which involved such complex mathematics only a handful of people in the entire world can understand them. Peer review not much use here and enter this new age of egg-heads trying to “out-complexify” each other.
You have only 12 dimensions? ...... pffft... Look here, I have a closed equation which explains life, the universe, and everything with dimensionality to the power of infinity minus 1. Theories aren't always testable however science tends to disregard theories which aren't testable because it does experimental physicists out of a job (and if its not testable then it becomes a matter of belief rather than science). Quite extreme theories are potentially needed to displace quantum/mechanics/relativity because they tend to be harder to test. The Bohm interpretation of Quantum mechanics offers explanations for things standard quantum mechanics doesn't explain but also produces identical results to standard Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics. Some disregarded it solely for that reason that it appeared to not be testable, though in recent years suggestions have been made for possible deviations from standard model results.
Take instance one of my favourite cases: Holonomics, i.e., the idea that the universe is a multidimensional projection of a two-dimensional universe, also partly due to Bohm, is also largely ignored because it appears to be untestable. Where theories are untestable, proponents tend to spend much of their time trying to come up with experiments that will allow them to be tested.
String theory has had a similar problem.
An important part of physics is figuring out how theories can be tested. As a pupil I was pretty good at mathematics and physics. So I'd conclude that our ordinary four dimensions plus the six extra dimension would result in a ten-dimensional universe. Would I be right? Indeed I’m frigging right! But there are other versions of string theory that call for differing numbers of dimensions. After 10, I believe 26 is the next mathematically credible number. But the questions is: “Will it make my cornflakes stay crispy in the milk?” Answer: “In the 5th dimension they will be crispy, in our dimension they will remain soggy. In the 6th dimension they will be a moonbeam. I'm sure I saw one of the extra dimensions doing a spot of shopping for the weekend, in Lisbon, last Thursday. It had nice legs and a cotton frock.”
String theory is the theory that matter, energy and women are made up of tiny strings. It states that whenever you put a set of perfectly arranged strings in any container, they will come out completely tangled, no matter what the arrangement or the container. The aforementioned three ingredients (plus lard that acts as the glue) give rise to various elaborate, sophisticated and highly complicated and yet subtly simple and non-functioning existences, such as: iPod headphones, Christmas Tree Lights, garden hoses, electric cords, string panties, shoelaces, my Kodi player, my Synology NAS, etc.; although surprisingly beautiful and functioning constructions have also appeared, such as horse intestines, beetle legs, belly-button fluff, the area behind your computer desk still has a lot of trash from the last century. The answer to that is loop quantum gravity; an opposing theory to string theory and one that has concrete evidence including the Higgs-Boson you happen to have heard about.
Seriously. Something that I've always found difficult to get my head round in "simplified" explanations of multidimensional physics is the concept of dimensions rolled up so small that we can't perceive them. (And I'm well into mathematical physics, though not this specialty). An explanation I've come up with, with the request that it be criticised and corrected if possible, and the hope that it might be accurate enough to help:
Imagine a creature living in a perceived one-dimensional world, a cotton thread (not necessarily straight as viewed by an outside 3D observer). The creature will only see one dimension (with 2 directions, forwards and backwards). Its senses are not sensitive enough to discover this, but actually the thread is 3-dimensional, with the perceived dimension of extension along the thread, although the thread has a diameter and an interior, so that expressing a position microscopically would require 3 dimensions (in polar coordinates extension along, distance from the centre, and angle relative to some arbitrary radial axis). The values of the 2nd and 3rd coordinates would always be infinitesimally small (for a very thin 1D-in-3D universe), and space would be seen as one-dimensional. How’s that for a visualization? Pretty neat, ah.
I agree general relativity is at a dead end when it comes to a theory that explains how the force of gravity is transferred. Perhaps it is time to shake it up and take a close look at the base fundamentals behind some current academic research. The challenge for fundamental analysis goes to the young up and coming academic researcher who is actively seeking solutions and innovation. If this is you then the principles of atomic gravity are your starting point! It may be your time to race past your peers with both prestige and setup a great career path. The principles of atomic gravity are tools used to advance academic research in the natural sciences. The principles describe the method to how the force of gravity is transferred in atomic structure. Understand the principles to understand the bigger picture.
The next step is easy. A summary of the principles can be found using Google. It is better to understand the principles now before spending too many years chasing ghosts like the many vested current academic pre-retirees and retirees whose past research centered on the fundamentals of gravity through the theory of general relativity.
New ideas are born and the old theories fade away demonstrating how the evolution of scientific knowledge has advanced through-out human endeavour. Take a step forward and get in the lead!
Show More
understand... what a scam.I suspect that a lot of the hostility and rejection of science by people who can't understand it is because it makes them feel stupid. It is, after all, fundamental to understanding how the world works. Some people are scientists; some people are not, but know what science is; but some people not only don't understand science, but don't know that they don't know, because they can't even see it. This is a bit analogous to being able to read. Some can go into a library and read in a few languages, some only in one, others can know what books are but not be able to read, and some don't actually know what books are and feel stupid, so pretend that they either don't exist or are some sort of conspiracy against them, which makes them feel important. There are theories around which involved such complex mathematics only a handful of people in the entire world can understand them. Peer review not much use here and enter this new age of egg-heads trying to “out-complexify” each other.
You have only 12 dimensions? ...... pffft... Look here, I have a closed equation which explains life, the universe, and everything with dimensionality to the power of infinity minus 1. Theories aren't always testable however science tends to disregard theories which aren't testable because it does experimental physicists out of a job (and if its not testable then it becomes a matter of belief rather than science). Quite extreme theories are potentially needed to displace quantum/mechanics/relativity because they tend to be harder to test. The Bohm interpretation of Quantum mechanics offers explanations for things standard quantum mechanics doesn't explain but also produces identical results to standard Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics. Some disregarded it solely for that reason that it appeared to not be testable, though in recent years suggestions have been made for possible deviations from standard model results.
Take instance one of my favourite cases: Holonomics, i.e., the idea that the universe is a multidimensional projection of a two-dimensional universe, also partly due to Bohm, is also largely ignored because it appears to be untestable. Where theories are untestable, proponents tend to spend much of their time trying to come up with experiments that will allow them to be tested.
String theory has had a similar problem.
An important part of physics is figuring out how theories can be tested. As a pupil I was pretty good at mathematics and physics. So I'd conclude that our ordinary four dimensions plus the six extra dimension would result in a ten-dimensional universe. Would I be right? Indeed I’m frigging right! But there are other versions of string theory that call for differing numbers of dimensions. After 10, I believe 26 is the next mathematically credible number. But the questions is: “Will it make my cornflakes stay crispy in the milk?” Answer: “In the 5th dimension they will be crispy, in our dimension they will remain soggy. In the 6th dimension they will be a moonbeam. I'm sure I saw one of the extra dimensions doing a spot of shopping for the weekend, in Lisbon, last Thursday. It had nice legs and a cotton frock.”
String theory is the theory that matter, energy and women are made up of tiny strings. It states that whenever you put a set of perfectly arranged strings in any container, they will come out completely tangled, no matter what the arrangement or the container. The aforementioned three ingredients (plus lard that acts as the glue) give rise to various elaborate, sophisticated and highly complicated and yet subtly simple and non-functioning existences, such as: iPod headphones, Christmas Tree Lights, garden hoses, electric cords, string panties, shoelaces, my Kodi player, my Synology NAS, etc.; although surprisingly beautiful and functioning constructions have also appeared, such as horse intestines, beetle legs, belly-button fluff, the area behind your computer desk still has a lot of trash from the last century. The answer to that is loop quantum gravity; an opposing theory to string theory and one that has concrete evidence including the Higgs-Boson you happen to have heard about.
Seriously. Something that I've always found difficult to get my head round in "simplified" explanations of multidimensional physics is the concept of dimensions rolled up so small that we can't perceive them. (And I'm well into mathematical physics, though not this specialty). An explanation I've come up with, with the request that it be criticised and corrected if possible, and the hope that it might be accurate enough to help:
Imagine a creature living in a perceived one-dimensional world, a cotton thread (not necessarily straight as viewed by an outside 3D observer). The creature will only see one dimension (with 2 directions, forwards and backwards). Its senses are not sensitive enough to discover this, but actually the thread is 3-dimensional, with the perceived dimension of extension along the thread, although the thread has a diameter and an interior, so that expressing a position microscopically would require 3 dimensions (in polar coordinates extension along, distance from the centre, and angle relative to some arbitrary radial axis). The values of the 2nd and 3rd coordinates would always be infinitesimally small (for a very thin 1D-in-3D universe), and space would be seen as one-dimensional. How’s that for a visualization? Pretty neat, ah.
I agree general relativity is at a dead end when it comes to a theory that explains how the force of gravity is transferred. Perhaps it is time to shake it up and take a close look at the base fundamentals behind some current academic research. The challenge for fundamental analysis goes to the young up and coming academic researcher who is actively seeking solutions and innovation. If this is you then the principles of atomic gravity are your starting point! It may be your time to race past your peers with both prestige and setup a great career path. The principles of atomic gravity are tools used to advance academic research in the natural sciences. The principles describe the method to how the force of gravity is transferred in atomic structure. Understand the principles to understand the bigger picture.
The next step is easy. A summary of the principles can be found using Google. It is better to understand the principles now before spending too many years chasing ghosts like the many vested current academic pre-retirees and retirees whose past research centered on the fundamentals of gravity through the theory of general relativity.
New ideas are born and the old theories fade away demonstrating how the evolution of scientific knowledge has advanced through-out human endeavour. Take a step forward and get in the lead!
Show Less
LibraryThing member fpagan
Here Close discusses the major theories of modern fundamental physics in terms that are simple and qualitative but also authoritative. He concludes with the conjecture that "in some future theory of everything, space and time will turn out not to be fundamental and will emerge from some deeper
Show More
concept." (p 145) It's perhaps a little ironic, then, that earlier he says quite a bit about string theory but barely mentions loop quantum gravity; I'd suggest Carlo Rovelli's 2016/17 popularizations as follow-up reading. Show Less
Language
Physical description
136 p.; 8.82 inches
ISBN
8833929329 / 9788833929323
Local notes
sfoglia le prime pagine:
http://flipbook.cantook.net/?d=%2F%2Fedigita.cantook.net%2Fflipbook%2Fpublicatio...
All’alba del secolo scorso, esattamente allo scoccare del 1900, Lord Kelvin proclamò che ormai non c’era più niente di nuovo da scoprire nel campo della fisica. «Non rimangono altro che misurazioni sempre più precise» affermò. Di lì a pochi anni – come sappiamo – Albert Einstein avrebbe ribaltato le conoscenze e l’immagine del mondo fino allora date per certe con la teoria della relatività e aprì una sorprendente nuova fruttuosa stagione nella comprensione delle leggi che regolano l’universo.
Ancora nel 1980 Stephen Hawking ipotizzò che la fine della fisica teorica fosse vicina, e che in cambio sarebbe presto comparsa una teoria del tutto che avrebbe finalmente trionfato nella definitiva comprensione della natura. E si sbagliava, ovviamente.
Ma cos’è una teoria del tutto? Frank Close è chiaro: «Una teoria che si basa sugli studi in ogni campo rilevante del sapere attuale – fisica, astronomia, matematica – per cercare di spiegare tutto ciò che sappiamo a oggi dell’universo».
È così che in questo breve e compatto libro inizia il viaggio attraverso le più note teorie del tutto: dall’universo – meccanismo perfetto – di Isaac Newton, al Sistema del mondo di Pierre-Simon de Laplace, dall’unificazione delle leggi dell’elettricità e del magnetismo, ad opera di James Clerk Maxwell – che fece baluginare la quasi-fine dell’indagine sul mondo –, fino alla spiegazione meccanica alla base della termodinamica che sembrò, davvero, permetterci di spiegare ogni cosa – il calore, la luce, la materia. E ancora le più recenti strade battute dai fisici: dalle superstringhe (rese popolari da Brian Greene) alla quantum loop gravity (resa popolare da Carlo Rovelli), e il Multiverso (di Max Tegmark), la materia oscura e molte altre strane cose. Ogni volta che ci sembra di averlo compreso, il tutto si sposta, scarta di lato, spalanca alla vista intere regioni inesplorate di cui non si sospettava neppure l’esistenza.
Il tutto è lì, sembra di toccarlo, ma sfugge sempre un po’ più oltre, mentre noi, nell’inseguirlo, avanziamo di un altro passo.
(piopas)
http://flipbook.cantook.net/?d=%2F%2Fedigita.cantook.net%2Fflipbook%2Fpublicatio...
All’alba del secolo scorso, esattamente allo scoccare del 1900, Lord Kelvin proclamò che ormai non c’era più niente di nuovo da scoprire nel campo della fisica. «Non rimangono altro che misurazioni sempre più precise» affermò. Di lì a pochi anni – come sappiamo – Albert Einstein avrebbe ribaltato le conoscenze e l’immagine del mondo fino allora date per certe con la teoria della relatività e aprì una sorprendente nuova fruttuosa stagione nella comprensione delle leggi che regolano l’universo.
Ancora nel 1980 Stephen Hawking ipotizzò che la fine della fisica teorica fosse vicina, e che in cambio sarebbe presto comparsa una teoria del tutto che avrebbe finalmente trionfato nella definitiva comprensione della natura. E si sbagliava, ovviamente.
Ma cos’è una teoria del tutto? Frank Close è chiaro: «Una teoria che si basa sugli studi in ogni campo rilevante del sapere attuale – fisica, astronomia, matematica – per cercare di spiegare tutto ciò che sappiamo a oggi dell’universo».
È così che in questo breve e compatto libro inizia il viaggio attraverso le più note teorie del tutto: dall’universo – meccanismo perfetto – di Isaac Newton, al Sistema del mondo di Pierre-Simon de Laplace, dall’unificazione delle leggi dell’elettricità e del magnetismo, ad opera di James Clerk Maxwell – che fece baluginare la quasi-fine dell’indagine sul mondo –, fino alla spiegazione meccanica alla base della termodinamica che sembrò, davvero, permetterci di spiegare ogni cosa – il calore, la luce, la materia. E ancora le più recenti strade battute dai fisici: dalle superstringhe (rese popolari da Brian Greene) alla quantum loop gravity (resa popolare da Carlo Rovelli), e il Multiverso (di Max Tegmark), la materia oscura e molte altre strane cose. Ogni volta che ci sembra di averlo compreso, il tutto si sposta, scarta di lato, spalanca alla vista intere regioni inesplorate di cui non si sospettava neppure l’esistenza.
Il tutto è lì, sembra di toccarlo, ma sfugge sempre un po’ più oltre, mentre noi, nell’inseguirlo, avanziamo di un altro passo.
(piopas)