Martin Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 Amazon has this "general physics" bestseller list that has things like Brief History of Time, and Brian Greene Elegant Universe etc. And Kaku books etc. I just checked it out around 6 PM pacific today Wednesday 30 August and SMOLIN WAS NUMBER ONE http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/14560/ref=pd_ts_b_nav/102-4540543-7840144 and this is people advance ordering the book because it isnt even available for shipping until 15 Septemberl Amazing. Really. I am totally amazed at the popularity of this book. the list changes hourly so it might not be #1 when you look. It has been in the top 10 or so for over a week, but I didnt expect it to actually go ahead of Brian Greene and all that pop science stuff.
swansont Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 But it's competing with textbooks, so the popularity is normalized to how popular they are.
Bettina Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 Well, I just got the two books I was waiting for from Amazon... "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene ( I read his other one) "Warped Pasages" by Lisa Randall. I'm reading WP first. If I like the book, I will read it very slowly and only for an hour before I sleep. Bee Martin.... Look at the review one person gave to smolins book... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0618551050/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/104-7422758-3593505?ie=UTF8&n=14560&s=books
Martin Posted August 31, 2006 Author Posted August 31, 2006 Martin.... Look at the review one person gave to smolins book... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0618551050/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/104-7422758-3593505?ie=UTF8&n=14560&s=books Not to take seriously. He is a well-known panner of anything critical of string. If something is critical of string he usually says that it is "anti-science". He has put up several twostar reviews which were so biased and mean that Amazon deleted them. They will not take onestar, so he is trying to say the worst thing he can get them not to delete. It is interesting, may have backfired. Because the day Amazon decided to leave the Dr. Motl twostar review up, and not delete it, was the day that Smolin sailed to the top. People are catching on to Dr. Motl so it probably doesnt matter so much what he says any more.
Martin Posted August 31, 2006 Author Posted August 31, 2006 But it's competing with textbooks, so the popularity is normalized to how popular they are. Having it mixed with general physics textbooks makes it less clear. They could take some extra trouble and divide into two lists. But it's all right, can still get an idea.
lucaspa Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 Amazon has this "general physics" bestseller list that has things like Brief History of Time' date=' and Brian Greene Elegant Universe etc. And Kaku books etc. I just checked it out around 6 PM pacific today Wednesday 30 August and SMOLIN WAS NUMBER ONE[/quote'] This is good news because ...
CPL.Luke Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 its competeing with physics textbooks and physics popularizations, if you scroll down you'll find the elegant universe and other such books. I wonder where it is on the the big list of best sellers.
Martin Posted August 31, 2006 Author Posted August 31, 2006 well I just checked after supper and as of 9 PM pacific, Smolin is back to #2 on the bestseller list. that is where The Trouble with Physics has spent most of the day (when it wasn't #1) the #1 book, the one ahead of Smolin's, is a college physics textbook by Douglas Giancoli. I own an earlier addition and have met Giancoli when he was a non-teaching visitor at Berkeley. He had a dark cluttered office in the old physics building and didnt seem to do anything except write. I think I told him I liked his style of textbook writing, but basically we just kind of grunted at each other.
Martin Posted August 31, 2006 Author Posted August 31, 2006 Well' date=' I just got the two books I was waiting for from Amazon... "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene ( I read his other one) "Warped Pasages" by Lisa Randall. I'm reading WP first. If I like the book, I will read it very slowly and only for an hour before I sleep. [/quote'] that is such a good way to read a book that has to do with geometry! I think it will slowly percolate into your imagination. You might even dream about those membranes she uses to depict the world. "branes" I think they are. Our world a mere billowy surface floating in some more roomy more comprehensive surroundings. you will have to excuse me though! I know of randall's braneworld models only by hearsay! I have read neither book----neither Lisa nor Brian's. but for whatever it's worth, I have tried absorbing differential geometry and some other visual kinds of math by studying it slowly just before bedtime. I used to do homework problems before bed and in the morning would sometimes wake up knowing how to do a hard one that I couldnt solve the night before. maybe something similar has happened to you too.
Martin Posted August 31, 2006 Author Posted August 31, 2006 But it's competing with textbooks, so the popularity is normalized to how popular they are. Yes! One can INFER roughly how many copies of TwP are being ordered nationwide because one can guess-----order of magnitude----how many copies of Giancoli Freshman Physics Amazon is selling. It fixes the scale. Not for nothing are you a working physicist Tom Swanson, and accustomed to measuring obscure and elusive quantities! To my embarrassment I had not noticed this disguised convenience.
swansont Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 Yes! One can INFER roughly how many copies of TwP are being ordered nationwide because one can guess-----order of magnitude----how many copies of Giancoli Freshman Physics Amazon is selling. It fixes the scale. Not for nothing are you a working physicist Tom Swanson' date=' and accustomed to measuring obscure and elusive quantities! To my embarrassment I had not noticed this disguised convenience.[/quote'] I measure time. Elusive, perhaps, but not obscure.
J.C.MacSwell Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 Well' date=' I just got the two books I was waiting for from Amazon... "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene ( I read his other one) "Warped Pasages" by Lisa Randall. I'm reading WP first. If I like the book, [b']I will read it very slowly and only for an hour before I sleep. [/b] Bee Martin.... Look at the review one person gave to smolins book... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0618551050/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/104-7422758-3593505?ie=UTF8&n=14560&s=books You could also try a warm glass of milk.
Severian Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 People are catching on to Dr. Motl so it probably doesnt matter so much what he says any more. Come on - the guy is a respected physicist. You may disagree with him, but to completely discount his opinion, and urge others to ignore him, is a bit much.
lucaspa Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 its competeing with physics textbooks and physics popularizations, if you scroll down you'll find the elegant universe and other such books. I wonder where it is on the the big list of best sellers. Again, this is good because ... Implicit in your sentence, but unstated, is that Smolin's book is somehow exceptional. Why?
J.C.MacSwell Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 Come on - the guy is a respected physicist. You may disagree with him, but to completely discount his opinion, and urge others to ignore him, is a bit much. In your opinion would he give a good review to a well written anti-string book? I know people that, where I respect their work, I would take with a bucket of salt their opinion of a competitor or colleague. Not that I know anything at all of Dr. Motl, but why shouldn't Martin urge others to ignore him, if he feels the guy is not being objective and is on a crusade?
lucaspa Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 Come on - the guy is a respected physicist. You may disagree with him, but to completely discount his opinion, and urge others to ignore him, is a bit much. The review did seem a bit strident and intolerant to me. String Theory is not as rock solid as Motl makes out. He must have had a cow when he saw: 5. Kaku M, Testing string theory. Discover August 2005 http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-05/cover/ There are also papers in physics journals that I've seen that indicate that the predictions made by String Theory are not being found. Instead of stating Smolin's remarks on how to reform science, I wish Motl would have quoted Smolin instead of making these statements: "In the sociological part of this book, Smolin complains that no one takes him seriously and tries to paint the mainstream physics community as a group of evil people. Also, he proposes "cures" for the things that he views as "problems". This includes new ethical standards of the science community. For example, one of his rules says that conclusions must be accepted by everyone if their author is a person of good faith. Another rule, apparently applied to the other theories, says that they must first present a full rigorous proof. " These are very serious charges. They need to be documented by quoting Smolin instead of just saying that Smolin said this. I personally think Loop Quantum Gravity is a cool idea. Don't know that it is correct, but then I don't know that String Theory or Randall's 'branes are correct, either. The data simply isn't there to say one way or the other. But scientists do get overly emotional sometimes when defending and attacking ideas. Look at the Gould vs Dawkins animosity. Not every scientist is as rational as Milgrom: "As its inventor, I would like it [MOND] to be a revolution, but I look at it coolly," says Milgrom. "I will be very sad, but not shocked if turns out to be dark matter." C Seife, Radical gravity theory hits large scale snag. Science 292: 1629, June1, 2001
Martin Posted August 31, 2006 Author Posted August 31, 2006 I measure time. Elusive, perhaps, but not obscure. point taken:-) btw quantum gravitists actually have trouble defining time (in quantum theory of spacetime geometry) people tend to dismiss problems in the foundations (let's just get on with it) but it's like earthquakes in california you tend to forget about the deep faults some time we'll have a thread about these measurements of elusive brief intervals of time that concern you---it could be more-than-usual interesting
Martin Posted August 31, 2006 Author Posted August 31, 2006 You could also try a warm glass of milk. come on MacSwell, reading Lisa Randall at bedtime is a good way to get some interesting brain activity going during dreamtime you know this. OK I see the smilie you were just kidding. I can still edit, so I will respond to your post #19 here Time took a serious beating back in 1905... and still hasn't recovered. It sure did! But I think an even worse one in 1915. Gen Rel doesnt even have Poincaré symmetry. the most persistent difficulties with time seem to go back to 1915 and Gen Rel. IMO anyway.
J.C.MacSwell Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 Time took a serious beating back in 1905... and still hasn't recovered.
Martin Posted August 31, 2006 Author Posted August 31, 2006 Hi Severian, lucaspa! the only review I've seen of Smolin's TwP book that I would even call a review (surveying the whole book, identifying the main themes, trying to judge what it really says) was by a German woman who is a Quantum Gravity phenomenologist----Sabine Hossenfelder She goes by the name of Bee. here is Bee's review, if you are curious: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2006/08/lee-smolins-trouble-with-physics.html
Locrian Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 Come on - the guy is a respected physicist. You may disagree with him, but to completely discount his opinion, and urge others to ignore him, is a bit much. Well, I've never met anyone who actually respected him; I doubt anyone I work around knows anything about him. I'm sure they're out there, but calling him "respected" deserves some sort of context. On the other hand, Motl has a habit of being abusive, insulting, irrational and absurd. I can provide any number of quotes from him made online that consist of nothing more than personal insults with no information, no argument and no intellectual value. Discounting his opinion... hard to say... but if being obnoxious, unprofessional, unproductive and childish isn't reason to ignore someone, what is?
Locrian Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 More on topic, the thing that annoys me about the book is its title: it should be titled A Trouble in Physics. I'm not aware of any problem that would qualify as being a problem in physics that affected every area of the discipline, and certainly none that have anything to do with HEP. I haven't read the book (and hope not to have to), but the title sure seems to give a very wrong impression.
bascule Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 Well, I've never met anyone who actually respected him I respect him! At least enough to have bought his last for-laymen book. I doubt anyone I work around knows anything about him. Anyone who knows anything about Loop Quantum Gravity is likely to at least have heard of him. SEED just ran an article on spacetime braiding which mentioned him. I'm sure they're out there, but calling him "respected" deserves some sort of context. He was respected enough to be asked the 2006 Edge question. On the other hand, Motl has a habit of being abusive, insulting, irrational and absurd. I can provide any number of quotes from him made online that consist of nothing more than personal insults with no information, no argument and no intellectual value. Not sure what to make of that guy and his backlash against Smolin. He seemed angry. Discounting his opinion... hard to say... but if being obnoxious, unprofessional, unproductive and childish isn't reason to ignore someone, what is? Yeah... And, on that note, I haven't even finished reading Three Roads to Quantum Gravity yet. Aaaaah!
Martin Posted September 4, 2006 Author Posted September 4, 2006 I respect him! At least enough to have bought his last for-laymen book. Hi bascule' date=' I think you are talking about Lee Smolin here---I agree. He is a productive researcher and good at encouraging other people and getting them started in reseach careers---he has a very active group of postdocs and visiting research people at Perimeter-Waterloo. It is hard to follow all the ins and outs of this thread but I think when Locrian said that he was referring to somebody else Well, I've never met anyone who actually respected him I dont think he was talking about Smolin, more likely about the guy involved in the backlash. Actually I would like to retract with apology any reference made earlier to that contentious personage, the important thing is not to let discussion shift to being about personalities. I regret any mention of such as might become the focus of discussion and thereby supplant productive exchange of ideas.
Locrian Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 Yea it was my understanding that Severian was reffering to Motl, and that was the subject of my post. Motl was not asked the 2006 edge question. Actually I would like to retract with apology any reference made earlier to that contentious personage, the important thing is not to let discussion shift to being about personalities. I regret any mention of such as might become the focus of discussion and thereby supplant productive exchange of ideas. Fair enough, I'll not add to that discussion even if it reappears.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now