Sign in with Facebook
Brian Clegg's Reviews > Seven Brief Lessons on Physics
Seven Brief Lessons on Physics
by
by
This strikes me as the kind of book that would really impress an arts graduate who thought it was giving deep insights into science in an elegant fashion, but for me it was a triumph of style over substance - far too little content to do justice to the subject. It is, in effect, seven articles strung together as a mini-book that can be read comfortably in an hour, but is priced like a full-length work.
Don't get me wrong, Carlo Rovelli knows his stuff when it comes to physics and gives us postcard sketches of a number of key areas, mostly in the hot fields like cosmology and quantum gravity (though interestingly focussing on the generally rather less popular loop quantum gravity). However he's not so good on his history of science, and can, as scientists often do when writing for the general public, over-simplify.
The last of the articles is different from the rest - rather than take in a specific field (quantum physics, say) as the earlier articles do, it looks at how people and science interact. In some ways this is the freshest and most interesting part of the content... it's just hard to see why it's a 'lesson in physics.'
This book came across to me like a taster menu from a fancy restaurant. It will certainly hit the mental tastebuds, and contains a number of delights - but it is insubstantial and leaves you wanting far more. I can see the title doing very well as a gift book. It looks pretty and is handsomely bound, but there are plenty of better options out there if a reader really wants to be introduced to the wonders of modern physics.
Don't get me wrong, Carlo Rovelli knows his stuff when it comes to physics and gives us postcard sketches of a number of key areas, mostly in the hot fields like cosmology and quantum gravity (though interestingly focussing on the generally rather less popular loop quantum gravity). However he's not so good on his history of science, and can, as scientists often do when writing for the general public, over-simplify.
The last of the articles is different from the rest - rather than take in a specific field (quantum physics, say) as the earlier articles do, it looks at how people and science interact. In some ways this is the freshest and most interesting part of the content... it's just hard to see why it's a 'lesson in physics.'
This book came across to me like a taster menu from a fancy restaurant. It will certainly hit the mental tastebuds, and contains a number of delights - but it is insubstantial and leaves you wanting far more. I can see the title doing very well as a gift book. It looks pretty and is handsomely bound, but there are plenty of better options out there if a reader really wants to be introduced to the wonders of modern physics.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Seven Brief Lessons on Physics.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
November 2, 2015
–
Finished Reading
November 11, 2015
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-50 of 53 (53 new)
message 1:
by
Nick
(new)
-
added it
Nov 11, 2015 05:09AM
Mr Clegg could you suggest a better introduction into modern physics please?
reply
|
flag
I think physics is too big a topic to have a single book do justice to. So, for instance, on quantum physics alone I'd probably recommend four books - Marcus Chown's Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You for a painless introduction, John Gribbin's In Search of Schrodinger's Cat for a history of its development, Cox & Forshaw's The Quantum Universe for a quite heavy duty look at the theory and my own The Quantum Age to explore the applications of quantum physics. Generally speaking, the www.popularscience.co.uk website is a good place for recommendations.
Interesting, I rated it highly for the style, but I never thought too much about the content not having much prior Physics knowledge but having learnt more since you're right it's too short to give the subject justice. Yes a teaser/taster is certainly a good way to describe it
I am in agreement here. Way too short to do the subject justice, however, I think that's kind of the point of this book. It's meant for people with no prior knowledge of physics (as it says at the beginning) and is really just supposed to pique the interest of the common person. In that regard I think it does well, plus, if people get interested enough by this book, doesn't that help sell other physics texts?
Generally I'd like to say thanks for your high-content, high-utility reviews on popular science books. I tried an author search at www.popularscience.co.uk - "Asimov" - no listings!
This is like doing an author search on "philosophers.com" and getting no hits for Plato, Aristotle, or Confucious ( Asimov may not have invented the genre but was undoubtedly its most prolific executor).
As for "Seven Lessons" - Physics without math is like seasoning without soup. Imaging being served chicken soup at a Tex-Mex restaurant - you get a plate with oregano, cilantro and a wedge of lime - and an empty bowl.
Thanks for the heads up on this one.
I always hate it when a reviewer says "there are plenty of better options" and then doesn't mention any of them. Makes one wonder.
This is what I call a "fizzy pop" book. Too much gas and no substance. On the other hand the introduction does mention that this is a collection of newspaper articles. So that already makes it too much science for the average newspaper reader?Thank you for the other recommendations in the previous comment.
"it is insubstantial and leaves you wanting far more".But isn't that the point of the book that it is 'brief' and leaves you wanting more. A lot of folks are intimidated by the subject and perhaps this book will help them to delve further into the topic. You are right about the price though, but I got it from my public library so can't complain.
It is, by its own admission, an introduction. I'm sorry the fact that the author didn't squeeze in the whole field of physics meant you felt the need to scrawl such a petulant and snotty review but, hey, maybe read the preface and try to understand the actual purpose behind publication.
As a science kid who has yet to fully grow up, I found Mr. Clegg's capsule to be sober and objective (hardly "petulant" or "snotty"). Hard to say what Rik's readerly interests are behind that "private" Goodreads barrier, but I'll guess that Rik skipped his courses in science and irony (ceertainly, he seems to have missed the irony of his snotty comment).
Let's peserve his comment for "posterity" - he wrote:
It is, by its own admission, an introduction. I'm sorry the fact that the author didn't squeeze in the whole field of physics meant you felt the need to scrawl such a petulant and snotty review but, hey, maybe read the preface and try to understand the actual purpose behind publication.
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/1...
Incorrect, Jim. About pretty much everything.
As someone with no knowledge in physics, I found accessible and interesting. It has given me the courage to delve deeper into science reading and learn more: perhaps that's the purpose? I definitely don't think it's for the science-minded and left me with lots of questions, which I thought was great, since I haven't been thrilled by science-y topics since high school. Recommend any meatier reads?
What suggestions do you have for introductory of modern physics?
Have to agree with this review. I'm a total novice on this subject and have only recently started reading books on the cosmos etc. As an introduction, Neil deGrasse Tyson's "Astrophysics for People in a Hurry" is a brilliant place to start. All introductions leave you "wanting more". 7 lessons leaves you wanting too much. Reads like a book for early teens.
With Lee Smolin and Abhay Ashtekar, Rovelli introduced loop theory, which explains the attention it got in this book.
I disagree. I have a PhD in theoretical physics, but I thought this was a nice introduction to the subject for people who are interested in science. It's not supposed to be an undergraduate course in physics. It's supposed to introduce people to some of the big ideas without forcing them to learn any of the maths. The clue is very much in the title of the book.
Doesn't say anywhere it is an introduction merely wrote in a way any person can find accessible.
Robert wrote: "Doesn't say anywhere it is an introduction merely wrote in a way any person can find accessible."It's clearly an introduction because it is not a textbook or a series of published papers. It omits almost all equations. It only introduces the concepts rather than going deeply into them. Therefore it is an introduction.
Well, Brian Clegg, I am an Arts graduate so maybe that's why I like it. It seems to expand and underlie some of the understandings and questions studied in psychology.
And I was almost going to read this. Thanks!
Well said! Excellent review!
I agree with you, but somebody has to introduce us, who belongs to the humanities field, physics. And according, I find the last chapter, motivated but the weakest.
I completely agree with you. I don't necessarily think I wasted my time - especially given it was like 70 pages - but I thought it would have been better if it just expanded upon and focused on the last three "lessons."
And you're way more generous to the conclusion than me. That was just a mess, in my opinion.
The book is called 'seven BRIEF Lessons in Physics' and the first sentence of the preface says 'These lessons were written for those who know little or nothing about modern science' and yet... you are upset that's what this is.
It does mention it is for those who know little or nothing about modern science, but it’s weird because it does nothing to explain some of the more complicated concepts it mentions. I don’t think it is for those people neither for those who do know. So, I agree with this review.
I think this book is not born to describe a proper introduction to physics but as a divulgative information of our world and universe are made. Everyone with a minimum interest in science could read it and should read it.
What Matthew said. This book does exactly what it is meant to do. If you were expecting something else, you clearly missed the first sentence.
It's clear that the title of this book doesn't try to justify it as being a full in-depth look at physics. It does what it says on the tin!
You can try my book 'quantum gravity in a nutshell1'
I was surprised by his inclusion of loop quantum gravity rather than string theory too. But after reading the blurb about the author it mentions he's one of the pioneers behind the theory 🙄
Agreed - but don’t bash arts students. I was one. I wanted more though, more explanation. They are “brief” lessons though. *sigh*
I mean, I think you kind of hit the nail on the head but I have no idea why you chose to do it in such a disdainful and condescending way.This book *is* written for people who have no knowledge whatsoever of physics and would like to be sparked by the delight of the simplified and elegantly written breakdown. It is indeed a taster and a gateway and it is brilliantly done as such. Anyone who was expecting otherwise from 70 pages may have a great intellect for physics, but probably not for literature.
“I’ve read a book entitled “Seven brief lessons on physics” and I’m upset because they were indeed, seven brief lessons on physics.”
I could not agree or disagree with you, Mr Clegg. As i don't believe i have enough knowledge to participate in such a debate. But one thing i can tell you. I found this book to be one of my favorites this year, despite his over-simplification. Im in the ninth grade and in my country thats the year in which we have to start making big life decisions. What do we wanna persue? Well, i have already decided that i would like to explore the field of physics. However, i find philosofy very appealing too. So, when i started to read this book, i knew i wouldn't observe all the spectrum of physics. But it gave me a new prespective on his connection with philosofy. And to now know that connection existis comforts me a lot.
I struggle with this review. Clegg mentions arts students like they're unworthy of a book they'd understand. I have a PhD in the interpretation of ancient texts, and had to learn ancient languages; my expertise puts me somewhere between science and literature. I love physics, but even as an academic I struggle with it. I thought this book was very engaging, and put me on to other popular level books. I've read a few by Gribbin, Hawking, and others, and this book got me fired up to keep learning.
I loved this book precisely because it was brief and it didn't go into details (like ecuations). I read Helgoland and it was a little bit too much for me. For someone without a background in physics, who wants to come a little closer to understanding the universe, it's worth reading.
Well put Brian, I have just finished this book and agree with your assessment…
As an arts graduate I will say your review is spot on and when I read it I laughed to myself at how well you pinned this book!
I don’t know why you have to put down arts students in the process of reviewing a book when you can just keep it general..
Arts student here (specifically Spanish translation and Classical History and Literature). I'm enjoying this work, as Physics as an entire field has always seemed too broad, deep, and terrifying (a decade later I still have nightmares about college Algebra and Statistics) to truly get into. It is helping me to appreciate the field in a way that someone with no skill in the arts can still appreciate a clever and subtle translation, instrumental music, painting, sculpture, or a vocal performance. Without stalking your Goodreads profile I would guess that you likely enjoy any number of more scholarly or in-depth books focusing on Physics in general or any of it's various topics, in which case you're likely spot-on and this is not an appropriate book for you, however us shameless BA's can still enjoy it :)
And yet, did my soul, what that may be, soar!
I disagree. My feeling about this book is that it is an excellent introduction to physics for people who know very little, or absolutely nothing, about it. I think your definition of something better includes more content, but the fact that these are bite sized makes it easier to wrap your head around; it feels like something you can get into without it being an entire project, and without needing background knowledge to even begin. I haven't finished it yet, but the only reason for that is because I ended up going on and researching more about this or that topic (or even just a word I didn't know!) and eventually going on a rampage of knowledge consumption. The messiness of my own life hadn't put me in the mood for that particular adventure since I put it down last. But I think that's the point of the book, and it obviously worked for me. I think it's difficult for someone who does know a thing or two about physics to review and rate this book, because this book isn't for you. I've never even taken a high school physics lesson. This book is for people like me.
I think that was the intent. It was an intro designed to get ppl interested and provide a basic understanding.
Would love to know your recs for deeper dives! Hawking?
I am going to combine my arts background (studied Italian, not my original language) and a layperson's interest in physics by reading this book in Italian! Win all round (especially as it's short so if the grammar [or the physics?] overwhelms me I can see my way to the end!) Thank you for this review and for all the comments too.
