Customer Reviews

The New Physics and Its Evolution

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a very nice book which concentrates on what was known in the field of physics in the first decade of the 20th century. When it was written (1909,) radium and X-rays had recently been discovered, and physicists were still trying to explain the mysterious ether. In his forward the author says that the reader need not know anything about physics to understand what he writes, and that is largely true, but the more you know before reading the better you'll understand the details. The table of contents tells exactly what is in each chapter, but it isn't active, so you have to search for what you want. The TOC says that there's an index of names and an index of subjects at the end of the book, but they aren't there.

I love reading these old science books because I find it fascinating to see how much was known about the sciences in previous centuries, and how accurate their findings were. It's interesting to read about things which were believed at the time, but which we now know don't exist, like ether and N-rays. I'm surprised that there's no mention of Einstein in this book, since his Special Theory of Relativity was published in 1905.

This was written about 101 years ago as I write this review. The science documented in this book is fascinating in it's own right, but that is not the reason you should read this book. The snapshot of science as it existed is also fascinating. The use of the English language is extraordinarily clear to me, even though the phrasing seems quaint. It is very clear that much effort went into word and phrase choices to get just the right idea across. Words are used efficiently. There are no wasted words.
But none of that is what's most important to me. What is really astonishing, and appropriate especially for modern audiences, is the authors philosophical approach to what science really is. Is science the curiosity itch getting scratched? Is science the mundane application of the "scientific method"? Is science the production quotient of associate professors? Is science simply adding to human knowledge? It is none of the above. Science results when engineers ask for "a better light" and the "physicists" labor to get him that. Science results when doctors ask "how does this remedy work?" and the chemical "physicists" labor diligently to figure it out. In his mind, science is mostly physicists. But it also includes the "educated, erudite amateur" who "strives to understand" the modern developments in the scientific world. He states that "complicated physical models" deter "all but the boldest of human minds". He does not criticize the models at all, just notes that all but very bold minds are deterred. What is really cool is that he can see eras in human history where scientists have declared victory over their fields, in that the scientists of historical times seemed to have felt that all of science was laid clear, and that there were no more mysteries to analyze. This scientific hubris has been punished time and again with old theories laid waste with new discoveries. He is completely aware that of all the modern discoveries, many will be laid to waste with more modern work. This is perfectly clear with his many faceted deliberations on the "ether". The "ether" is mentioned again and again. As the scientists of 1909 struggle with the "ether" again and again, it is clear to us in hindsight that the struggles were because there is no ether. I think they understood that of all the possible results of their labors, an understanding that there is no ether at all would have made sense to them, but they really struggled with it.
It is also very interesting to note that almost every theory discussed in the book has a name attached to it. In other words, you wouldn't say "gravitational theory", you would say "gravitational theory of Newton". You wouldn't say, for instance, discovery of the gamma rays. You would say, instead, "discovery of the gamma rays of Madame Curie". In scientific communication, this would immediately let your reader know that you were talking about the Rays that Madame Curie was laboring to investigate, and all she has written about it. The science is, therefore, quite tightly attached to the person and personality of those people who investigated it. Nowadays, with science by committee, hundreds of co-authors, and funding by agencies, this personal attachment to scientific advance is completely gone. Just imagine someone saying, for instance, the "Standard Model" of Feynman of particle physics. Or, the "Black Holes of Hawking". Maybe Hawking's black holes are sufficiently different from the "Chicago School's" black holes, but we just don't speak like that anymore. Reading this book is, therefore, Nostalgic on a very large scale.
I think that this book should be required reading of college students of science and history and communication. It is that important.

This is a very interesting read - but a very old book - so it's more of a look-back (written as a look forward). It's really for the avid hobbyist.

This was a really good book. It just shows how the foundations of modern day science has changed and new developments have lead to more breakthroughs. I've always been facinated with science. Thoughs who feel the same I think you should really give this book a try ,and if you turn out not liking it then at least you didn't spend anything on it.

This is a very nice book which concentrates on what was known in the field of physics in the first decade of the 20th century.