Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 39
 Problematic August 31, 2009
Steinar Fosse
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
The items in this book is very hard to understand. I do not share the opinion of the reviewer that states that it is "accessible". You will have to understand a lot of matematics to comprehend what it is all about; I hope to be able to learn some of it before I can continue "Beyond the Standard Model".
 Focus, focus, and more focus -NOT June 8, 2009
Timothy M. Schulz
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
Why is it so hard for someone to stay on the subject matter? Too much of the book was spent on matters other than the subject, and I did buy the book for a lecture one the lack of funding for physics research. regardless of its importance.
Good only if you are in the know April 5, 2009
Mark II (Hong Kong SAR, China)
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
Woit's work is marvelous as a review piece for the working physicist, or at least someone with a degree in physics. In the book, specialist terms are never succinctly and aptly defined for the layman, and the reader is stranded between a writing prose that purports to cater to the needs of the general population while infused with an indecipherable gibberish technical jargons. That aside, "Not Even Wrong" is a good read, considering that it is comprehensive in its treatment of modern physics over the past 30 more years or so. Probably a bit difficult for someone who does not know a lot about physics already.
 Informative and worth reading November 1, 2008
Dr. Elmar Selbach
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
This book is a great summary of the way the string theory emerged - and how it failed.
The discussion of the behaviour of the string community is alike the dispute of the defenders of the old theory of Aristoteles with Galileo Galilei.
I enjoyed every minute reading this book.
 be warned, this is a history book. August 21, 2008
nairbv (dalian, china)
6 out of 19 found this review helpful
First, some reviews say this is not a book for laymen. They're reading it wrong. I don't get the impression that even those with degrees in physics will be familiar with everything term this book, ... and much of it isn't explained.
It isn't "not explained" because he expects you to already know, .. it's not explained because it doesn't matter.
"In 1937 someone-or-ruther discovered the xyz theory and it was very important." Doesn't mean you should be able to derive a proof for xyz theory. You don't even really have to understand what exactly it says, .. and you won't unless you read another book. I'm not physicist. I just read over the names and keep going.
but when it comes down to it,.... a hundred of pages of dates and theory names are BORING.
To me. I don't care about history. Maybe someone else wants to read about what particle accelerators cost how much money.
Next, ... from the reviews I read here on amazon I expected to be getting a book that would tell me a *little* bit about the history of string theory, give me some idea of where it was lacking, and maybe some kind of picture of where physics is going.
I feel like, so far, this is not what I got. Maybe I should have read "the trouble with Physics" ?
I'm at page 140. I might give up. I just finally now hit the first chapter that relates at all to string theory. It is also a history chapter. Maybe I should have started at page 140?
I didn't want to read a pure history book.
Finally:
Early on he describes his decision to study mathematics. He says that if he were to keep studying physics, he would have to work on string theory to get funding, and he didn't want to. I thought that was an interesting predicament for him to be in, and it starts to hint at some kind of a political situation in academia. That little story was about all I got so far that interested me.
He goes on to describe how math is important to physics, and, undervalued.
Since then, there's been some reference to how undervalued math (his field) is in physics (the field he's complaining about) in every chapter since. Maybe more than once a chapter. Maybe once a paragraph. Maybe once a sentence. ok, maybe I'm exaggerating.
I'm bored of it. I really don't care. I just want to hear what the argument is about string theory. I don't even know anything about string theory,... I was curious, and so far I still don't have any idea what it is. I know it involves lots of dimensions and some kind of strings. I knew that much before I started reading!
It makes me feel pretty frustrated that I had this book mailed all the way to china, and carried it around for half a year thinking it was going to interest me when I finally got some free time to read it.
I'm going back and reading the reviews again. It looks like those who did read both books say the other one is better. I was going to give this book two stars... but since another book exists saying the exact same thing but better, It's only getting one.
It might be a good book for someone. It just wasn't what I was looking for, and I feel like the existing reviews are sort of mis-leading in terms of what this book is about. If you want to read a history of math/physics then fine, go for it... or... well, ... maybe still you should read "the trouble with physics" instead?
Showing reviews 1-5 of 39
|
