Euclid's Window: The Story of Geometry from Parallel Lines to Hyperspace

[lightreads]

Euclid's Window : The Story of Geometry from Parallel Lines to Hyperspace by Leonard Mlodinow

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


History of math more than actualfacts math, with a minimally annoying authorial voice as these things go. Except for the teeny weeny culture/race centrism problem – I’m neither a historian nor a mathematician, but even I know it’s pretty freaking suspect when your history doesn’t include the advancements of, um, the Arab world, the South/Central American empires, or, you know, Asia, except for that one paragraph that one time. I mean, write a history of European geometry, by all means, I did like it, but let’s maybe call it that next time so as to look less like clueless Eurocentric twits, yeah?

Anyway. Last third of the book swung into modern physics, and convinced me yet again that in the absence of advanced math, it really does sound like these guys are just making shit up. I mean, vibrating strings? Oh rilly. Shame I stopped at calculus, because no matter how many metaphors you throw at me, I still have a hard time taking this stuff seriously without the fundamental grocking I don’t have the tools for.




View all my reviews

Comments

[cyprinella]

There was a book I read the beginning of once (I am very bad at reading nonfiction that isn't about bees) that was about philosophy and quantum mechanics that to me did a really great job of talking about how it all came together. However, I was also taking physical chemistry at the time and was learning the multivariable calculus used to describe how it all worked so of course it all made sense. Sadly I can't remember the name of the book.

[kate_nepveu]

Well, string theory is, I believe, effectively unfalsifiable, so yeah, it basically is just making shit up.

But there's a lot of modern physics that has actual experimental data supporting it. Admittedly I'm biased because I'm married to an experimentalist who wrote two pop-science books, one on quantum mechanics & one on relativity, though I should note that the relativity one relies particularly heavily on images.

[cahn]

Well, string theory is, I believe, effectively unfalsifiable, so yeah, it basically is just making shit up.

Heh, this.

Quantum mechanics sounds like people are just making stuff up, but some of the math (linear algebra) is not too hard to follow, although probably not with a high-school math background. Still, as Kate says, it's the experimental data that's important (and QM has that, so does relativity) -- one can make up fancy mathematical models all day long, but unless experiments back it up, it's just playing with making stuff up. (Nothing wrong with that! It's what mathematicians do every day! But I don't know that it should be called physics.)

[lightreads]

Yeah, once upon a time I dated a serious math geek (well, technically, engineer, which is an entirely different animal, but he had hobbies). And I had just enough math at the time for him to get me through big picture quantum mechanics and relativity by my fingertips and a prayer with that sense of ah, yes, now I see. Could never duplicate it now, I'm sure. But whenever I read pop science now, I keep reaching for that feeling again, and when all I've got is the author's pretty metaphors, I don't feel it, you know?

I like seeing behind the curtain, how things work. At work, we have these massive collated charts we've developed over decades of practice, with distilled technical knowledge. But 90% of the time I skip past them and look at the actual law, because that's just how my brain has to do it. Same thing, I think.

[cahn]

hee, yeah, I know both the engineer non-geeks and the engineer-math-geeks. Yes. I understand completely -- as we've sort of talked about before, this is the thing that totally annoys me about pop science.

The only pop-math books I can think of off-hand that are actually awesome in this regard are Journey Through Genius, which I read, oh, more than twenty years ago now, but it obviously made a huge impression on me, and Prime Obsession by John Derbyshire, both of which try to explain the math behind them.

I'm not sure I've read any pop physics that does the same thing. (Haven't read Chad Orzel's books; they might?) I do know a wonderful PDF free set of notes on quantum information theory, but that might be too technical?

[lightreads]

*bookmarks for a boring day at work* thanks!

[lightreads]

Well, string theory is, I believe, effectively unfalsifiable, so yeah, it basically is just making shit up.


True. They just do go on about how beautiful the math is. It goes something like "....so, eleven dimensions, then? Did you pick out of a hat?" "Oh no no, you don't understand, of course it is eleven, the math is perfect." Not like I don't believe them, I'd just like to experience firsthand the sort of math that would convince you of that. Just don't have mumblety years to spend on it. Or the brain shaped right for it, quite possibly.

I will sticky note your SO's books for the next time I'm in a pop physics mood. And perhaps unplug my headphones so the Doodledog can expand her education some more. She's shockingly unidiscipline -- a dog with a J.D. and not a jot of science in her fuzzy head.

[kate_nepveu]

The Doodledog is already a degree up on Emmy, so between that and, you know, the *working*, I think she need not hang her fuzzy head in intellectual shame!

Should you try Chad's books, I hope they suit.