Skip to main content

Fantastic Numbers and Where to Find Them - Antonio Padilla ***

I expected this to be a popular maths title, so was somewhat surprised to find it's actually a physics and cosmology book, but using the hooks of interesting numbers. As well as being slightly thrown by the title, I thought the introduction was remarkably similar to Douglas Adams' description of the way that the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy gets far too over-excited about how mindbogglingly big the universe is, but eventually it settles down and you get some useful stuff. Antonio Padilla's introduction was loaded with rhetoric on how biggly wonderful it was all going to be.

Once we get into the chapters proper, though, it does settle down a bit and Padilla gives us a whole range of mathematical insights to physical theories. We start with time dilation and relativity more generally before leaping to supermassive black holes. From here the dance of ideas continues - googols and googolplexes bring up the possibility of cosmic doppelgängers, while we then jump again to thermodynamics (with no numbers for quite a long time until statistical mechanics brings those big numbers back). Of course the next leap to quantum physics gives us whole new reasons to think in terms of big numbers... and so it goes.

A section on small numbers is mostly concerned with particle physics (with a lot on the Higgs boson) before we finally plunge into infinity. Here we get a nice gallop through the history of infinity - mostly mathematical without much physical context (perhaps surprisingly the role of infinity in calculus, so central to physics, hardly gets a mention). Things get interesting when we get to the problems of infinity for QED and how they were dealt with, finishing with a paean to string theory.

One problem I had with all of this is there's a kind of forced quirkiness throughout that never quite works - from the title's play on the Harry Potter spinoff title to, for example, the idea of using the number 1.000000000000000858 as a 'big number' because this is the time dilation factor that Usain Bolt would have undergone when racing in 2009, which feels arbitrary to the point of... pointlessness. I also really disliked the way that Padilla treats speculative theories such as what he refers to in the introduction as 'the holographic truth' (what's usually called the holographic principle), something that is largely self-referential maths driven by the increasingly doubted string theory and that has no current way of being tested. He later rather fudges the answer as to whether or not the holographic principle is real, but unconvincingly calls it 'the most important idea to have emerged in physics in the last 30 years.'

I didn't dislike this book, and there were indubitably some interesting bits and pieces in it, but it was all far too Tiggerish for me.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more