lucius@tardis.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (03/19/85)
_ Has anyone read or heard of a book called SUPERFORCE by Davies (I think that's the last name; I can't remember the first name)? I know what the book is about to a rough approximation but I don't know how credible it is. I was wondering whether it was worth my $16.95. It purports to be a book on a theory (or theories) about unification of the "fundamental forces" (strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational) and about the recent theories of how spacetime is constructed, with 11 dimen- sions, 7 of which are too tightly curved to see with current technology (an article on this appeared in the latest Scientific American -- it was quite uninformative). However, it also says things like if we could gain control of the dimensions beyond our 3 spatial ones we would become Lords of the Universe. Now, the book might actually have something to support this as- sertion, but in my past experience, this kind of thing goes with pseudo- scientific quackery. I got the above from reading the thing on the inside of the cover and looking at the table of contents. I have not had a chance to read any of the book itself, however, especially since I have not bought it yet because I don't know if it is worth buying. That is why I would like to hear the opinion(s) of anyone who has read some or all of this book about whether or not it is worth getting. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio seismo!tardis!lucius lucius@tardis.ARPA
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (03/20/85)
> uninformative). However, it also says things like if we could gain control > of the dimensions beyond our 3 spatial ones we would become Lords of the > Universe. > > -- Lucius Chiaraviglio > seismo!tardis!lucius > lucius@tardis.ARPA Shouldn't this have been posted to net.tv.drwho? :-) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (03/22/85)
In article <129@tardis.UUCP> lucius@tardis.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: > I got the above from reading the thing on the inside of the cover and >looking at the table of contents. I have not had a chance to read any of the >book itself, however, especially since I have not bought it yet because I don't >know if it is worth buying. That is why I would like to hear the opinion(s) of >anyone who has read some or all of this book about whether or not it is worth >getting. > > -- Lucius Chiaraviglio > seismo!tardis!lucius > lucius@tardis.ARPA i haven't read this book, but i have other books by davies and i think they are excellent for scientifically-oriented poeple who want an overview rather than a PhD disseration. i suspect that the comments on the cover and endsheets to be hyperbole on the part of the advertising people who don't really understand what the book is about. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
lucius@tardis.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (04/08/85)
_ I am reposting this because my last postnews attempt choked to death on a dead C-shell. I doubt that anything even got past the /tmp/xxxxxx file, but if it did, sorry for the inconvenience of the existence of the other partial copy. Michael Bishop writes about Superforce: > I have read it. I think the guy makes a lot of flowery statements > throughout the book. He makes numerous comparisons of modern physics to > mysticism, existentialism, and non-objective reality. He also makes > many arguments in the book for the existence of some "Cosmic Creator" > because the universe obviously displays so much order that it couldn't > possibly be the result of a random event (e.g., the old watchmaker's > analogy). The author never considers that by supposing the existence of > a creator to explain the universe, he then leaves himself open to the > question of who created the creator; a creator which obviously can't be > the result of a random event, if you stay with his analogy. > > In many places in the book I could not understand his usage of the > terms: nothingness, cause, effect, vacuum, reality, etc. It seemed > like his definitions were fluid meaning one thing in one place and > something else in another. He frequently makes what I consider to be > absurd comments like "Nothingness is something that is thriving with > energy." And various other ludicrous statements about effects preceeding > causes as though the meaning of the two words "cause" and "effect" can > be simply inverted or totally disregarded while you absorb these new > discoveries in physics. I think the book is on par with UFO's, Pyramid > Power, and Ancient Astronauts; that is, pulp science. Therefore, I > can't recommend this book to anyone. > > Michael Bishop > hplabs!hpfcla!mike-b > That's why I was asking about this book before I got it. I strongly suspected that it might be like this. (I wonder why so many other people gave it favorable reviews though? Maybe I should get it just for the purpose of reviewing it. But then that probably wouldn't stop some other poor jerk like me from wasting his money because of other favorable reviews. But then how am I to know it is actually a waste? This is bad.) I once read a book on -- would you believe it -- black holes -- that was very much like this. Might have even by the same guy, although I can't remember. If I ever remember when I'm stopping by the Georgia Tech Library I'll check it out just to give it the review it deserves to warn people away from it. Had all sorts of goofy things like Lucifer was red because his image was trapped at the event horizon of the black hole where God had thrown him (wouldn't stay red for a perceptible time anyway -- radiation would get redshifted probably to lower than 4.3 blackbody radiation so fast you wouldn't even get to see the last stages of his falling in, not to mention all the other things that are -- I believe the word is "inane" -- about this concept). More goofy things like it were that it would be "unbearable" (or maybe it was "unthinkable") to see a naked singularity (I could see that that might fry you or something but the impression I got from the book was that the author meant something was philosophically or morally wrong with it -- would you believe that? Maybe these pulp science writers are in with the Moral Majority or something? :-)). By the way, speaking of people making comparisons between physics and "non-objective reality" and other mystical things -- that seems to be becoming a fashion even among some respected scientists. I can't figure out what the deal is. And articles I have seen in Scientific American on advanced physics topics, such as the 11-dimensional space model, much of the more recent stuff on the quark theory, and other similar things, seem to be as uninformative as occult writings (and I can't understand the ones in the more technical journals such as Science at all). This could be just because my brain is too primitive on the evolutionary scale to comprehend such high concepts, but I can't get rid of the suspicion that a lot of the people making these theories and writing these articles don't know what they're talking about. Of course, I'm sure the high priesthood would be most displeased that a mere normal, who cannot comprehend their appreciation of the higher plane of existence of Gordelpus (read Olaf Stapledon's (sp) Last and First Men), dares to question their encyclicals. -- -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.ARPA seismo!tardis!lucius
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (04/11/85)
> By the way, speaking of people making comparisons between physics and > "non-objective reality" and other mystical things -- that seems to be becoming > a fashion even among some respected scientists. I can't figure out what the > deal is. And articles I have seen in Scientific American on advanced physics > topics, such as the 11-dimensional space model, much of the more recent stuff > on the quark theory, and other similar things, seem to be as uninformative as > occult writings (and I can't understand the ones in the more technical > journals such as Science at all). This could be just because my brain is too > primitive on the evolutionary scale to comprehend such high concepts, but I > can't get rid of the suspicion that a lot of the people making these theories > and writing these articles don't know what they're talking about. You are merely seeing the consequences of a serious problem with establishment philosophy that has undermined people's ability to identify what constitutes genuine knowledge. This subject has been accurately covered in the writings of the late Ayn Rand, q.v.
mike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) (04/12/85)
Subject: Re: Re: Superforce by Davies(?)? (reposting) > By the way, speaking of people making comparisons between physics and > "non-objective reality" and other mystical things -- that seems to be becoming > a fashion even among some respected scientists. > You are merely seeing the consequences of a serious problem with > establishment philosophy that has undermined people's ability to > identify what constitutes genuine knowledge. This subject has > been accurately covered in the writings of the late Ayn Rand, q.v. For anyone out there who wants reassurance that reality is objective, that concepts have meaning and are firmly connected to reality, that objective knowledge is possible, and that reason is man's only means to discover new knowledge, I highly recommend INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY, by Ayn Rand. I consider it to be the definitive book that correctly identifies the origin and validity of knowledge and truth. Michael Bishop hplabs!hpfcla!mike-b
mike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) (04/13/85)
I have read it. I think the guy makes a lot of flowery statements throughout the book. He makes numerous comparisons of modern physics to mysticism, existentialism, and non-objective reality. He also makes many arguments in the book for the existence of some "Cosmic Creator" because the universe obviously displays so much order that it couldn't possibly be the result of a random event (e.g., the old watchmaker's analogy). The author never considers that by supposing the existence of a creator to explain the universe, he then leaves himself open to the question of who created the creator; a creator which obviously can't be the result of a random event, if you stay with his analogy. In many places in the book I could not understand his usage of the terms: nothingness, cause, effect, vacuum, reality, etc. It seemed like his definitions were fluid meaning one thing in one place and something else in another. He frequently makes what I consider to be absurd comments like "Nothingness is something that is thriving with energy." And various other ludicrous statements about effects preceeding causes as though the meaning of the two words "cause" and "effect" can be simply inverted or totally disregarded while you absorb these new discoveries in physics. I think the book is on par with UFO's, Pyramid Power, and Ancient Astronauts; that is, pulp science. Therefore, I can't recommend this book to anyone. Michael Bishop hplabs!hpfcla!mike-b
hsf@hlexa.UUCP (Henry Friedman) (04/15/85)
You guys are not being quite fair to Davies. Although he does get (possibly) a bit carried away with philosophical implications in a few places, SUPERFORCE is basically a solid description of unification physics. And as has been mentioned, some very solid modern elementary particle physics, especially on the theoretical side (not yet experimentally confirmed), can sound somewhat bizarre on first exposure. I recommend SUPERFORCE if you: 1) want a clear exposition of elementary particles and forces, 2) want to understand the progress that has been made in unification of the four forces, such as the Grand Unified Theories and supersymmetry. 3) want the clearest explanation I've yet seen on the relationship between purely geometrical theories of matter and forces, on the one hand, and the quantum (boson carrier of forces) approach, on the other hand. 4) want to understand the relationship between experimental and theoretical physics. I suspect that some of the previous criticisms posted are not quite accurate. For example, although I haven't returned to the text to check every accusation, I don't recall that Davies meant that nothingness was full of energy, etc. I do recall that he said that space (spacetime) was different from nothingness, i.e., was part of the physical universe. And the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle allows that virtual particles are continuallly popping in and out of existence in "empty space." A few of Davies conclusions about the virtual impossibility of proving the supersymmetry theory seem to be already dated (see April 1985 issue of DISCOVER magazine, describing Carlo Rubbia's latest findings in the article "The Ultimate Theory of Everything"). But such findings only make the main discussion in SUPERFORCE that much more relevant and interesting. This is not to say you guys don't have some valid gripes about portions of the book. But discouraging people from reading it for the reasons stated would be "throwing out the baby with the bath water." --Henry Friedman