Sidney Perkowitz

This book is about physics in general, so mostly non-quantum, which I read to understand kinda conformist scientists, because it takes all kinds.

I guess the more technical way of saying that is to talk about the two theories, the two worlds, (I know that technically there are more than two), the standard model and quantum theory. It’s like there’s Normie World, which describes most things most of the time, (at least from a human perspective), and there’s Freak World, where the truth is stranger than you can imagine. If you read Wayne or DC and so on, the science they talk about will be mostly of this second kind, but the kinda Normie scientist thinks that there are Some strange things, sure, but kinda thinks that they’re on the margins, more or less, and thinks that the conformist model and certain simple-sounding truths are still kinda in that central zone. They’d like to unite the center and the margins, of course, but obviously this is not easy, as it’s not often that a statement is equally appealing to the normies and the freaks.

And who knows: maybe the normies will win. Maybe God will come down, explain the Theory of Everything, look at the people who dream strange dreams, and say, I don’t know. 🫢

You never know.

…. It’s not really about biology—as worthy as that field is—but briefly he expresses the conformist-scientific opinion confusing the stereotypical/conservative evangelical belief that you can first read your assumptions into the Bible, and then take those assumptions out of the Bible and understand the physical world better than physicists, and other people who might say that of course physicists are highly trained in the physical world and biologists in biology, but then too we believe that there is God, that there is Meaning, that consciousness is meant to evolve. But conformist-scientists don’t like that, so, whatever, right. But how do you prove something like that—“no God in evolution”—and equate it with the data about the age of the Earth? “We did an experiment, and God, Meaning, and the evolution of consciousness weren’t part of it, therefore…. Ah…. We win. You lose.” 😸🤪😎

…. I’d like to tell you about my Little Brother, the human sciences. For example, he’s the military: bombs from physics! Good, good. And he’s…. Money! Money from physics! Sci-fi films of dubious value from physics! (You know, kinda.) Good, good.

(scold) But don’t expand your consciousness with physics, that’s Not Allowed. (scold)

(cheery) Build a bomb instead! Hire some anti-Black engineers at Tesla! (cheery)

This concludes the discussion of Little Brother. 😮

…. The Mysteries of Matter 🧐

🤩… (mais)

A little self-indulgent at the beginning and a little repetitive at the end, Empire of Light is nonetheless a thoroughly enjoyable, densely informative, and surprisingly lucid exploration of the history—and potential future—of the science of light. Perkowitz has a knack for vivid analogy and, while I would've appreciated a few diagrams here and there, he rendered the complexities of quantum physics with nuance and verve.

I am curious how the intervening 20 years since this book's publication might have impacted physicists' knowledge of the universe and perhaps further developed some of the cutting-edge research into light's uses that Perkowitz described. For that matter, I wonder if a current treatise on the topic would be quite so European- and menfolk-centric. Perhaps the science of light really was overwhelmingly shaped by European men, but 20 years might offer historical and global insights as well as scientific developments.… (mais)

I dunno. Bits were fascinating. Bits were lucidly written. But maybe, to me, it was too scattered, too many miscellaneous short bits that didn't make a coherent & satisfying whole. Nothing I could really sink my teeth into. Plus, it's old, and there were a lot of sentences like this: 'By the time you read this, the 1999 Stardust spacecraft...' or 'Experiments are being run now, and once the data has been analyzed....'

I kinda wish Perkowitz had waited a decade to write, so we'd actually know more about the subject. And so I definitely do not recommend you buy this, sorry. But if you can get a copy from your library, it is well worth a skim. (get it? ;)… (mais)

The author. a physicist, traces the history of science in the movies, and examines how accurate the science is. In some cases, he gives the movies too much credit, but the discussion is lively and interesting. He writes with a light hand, making it more about the movies than the science. Although his presentation is positive, and he credits the movies with a great deal in regard to building interest in science, it is hard to come out of this with a feeling of well being, at least if you're a scientist. The author accepts too much in the way of stereotype, apparently assuming that scientists actually are as socially inept as they are depicted in the movies; perhaps he's been hanging around with physicists too much! He does dispute the idea that scientists are interested in taking over the world, but he brushes lightly over the impact that presentation has had on the public approach to science. Overall, a rather lightweight but interesting book on the topic.… (mais)