Review: "Properties Of Light" 68
| Properties Of Light | |
| author | Rebecca Goldstein |
| pages | 244 |
| publisher | Houghton Mifflin |
| rating | 8/10 |
| reviewer | Jon Katz |
| ISBN | 0-395-98659-1 |
| summary | Physicists seek truth and find tragedy. |
So the formidable problem is this: reconciling quantum physics with relativity theory still awaits a solution.
You might be surprised that a writer could build a dark, cold, strikingly imaginative novel out of that dilemma. Or a bitter love story right out of the darkside of academe. But Rebecca Goldstein, an author of four novels (The Mind-Body Problem among them) and the winner of a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship, manages to turn physics into first-rate fiction.
It isn't surprising that physicists have captured creative imaginations for years, from Jeanette Winterson to Michael Frayn's shockingly successful Broadway play "Copenhagen," about the famed World War II Bohr-Heisenberg encounter (the two devoted ex-colleagues could never agree on what did or didn't take take place), the purpose of which has had physicists and historians buzzing for decades.
After all, physicists are seeking nothing less than the meaning, nature and source of life.
The book doesn't waste the mystery and importance of its subject -- it's part thriller, part tragedy, both lyrical and surreal. The story, set in a college that is obviously inspired by Princeton, revolves around two physicists, Samuel Mallach and his young colleague Justin Childs. The two scientists, in the tradition of physicist friendships, have devoted their lives to trying to reconcile the contradictory claims of quantum mechanics and relativity, but in this almost-eerie tale, their well-meaning collaboration is doomed. This, also, is a deep strain in the history of physics: oddball, brilliant seekers ignored, celebrated, obsessed, consumed by their determination to unlock some of the biggest secrets in the universe. No field of scientific inquiry has higher stakes, or greater or more complex minds trying to grapple with them.
Appropriately, this story plays around with time, and narrative, as signalled by Goldstein: "whereby particles, having once been subjected to quantum entanglement, will forever after continue to assert, even when widely separated, instantaneous influences over one another ..." This book has a brooding, knowing, almost poetic tone, even as the lives of the characters begin to unravel, and the writing about physics is both remarkable and accessible.
"In the beginning," says one academic in the novel, "there was the big bang, a moment of infinite singularity, into which we cannot probe. Our knowledge begins at ten to the minus thirteen seconds after ground zero; only then can we lift the heavy veil and take a peek. All moments before that one are cloaked from our scientific view, and it remains to others to imagine what lies behind the cognitive curtain: whether it is there that God's hand may be invisibly moving."
There's another point where the Olympian chair of the physics department, whose daughter was playing Mozart on a miniature cello when she was four, tears into Justin:
"You can't really say what it's all about, now can you?", he had demanded of Justin, staring at Schrodinger's equation for the evolution of the wave function, symbolized by psi. Erwin Schrodinger, who had won his Nobel in 1933, had demonstrated that the wave function, a precisely defined mathematical object, completely specifies the state of any quantum mechanical system. So perhaps the most likely answer to Professor Kreb's querulously put question "What's it all about?" is that quantum mechanics is about the behavior of wave functions.
Ultimately, Properties of Light is about the gripping power of physics to capture the interest and imagination of everyone, even those who will never come close to understanding it's mystical, surreal properties. This is a sad story, many of the characters destroyed by mistrust, betrayal and hatred. Despite what happens to their relationships with one another-- the third major character is Mallach's daughter Dana, who Justin falls in love with -- the three are all mesmerized by the special beauty of seeking some big truth.
You can purchase this book at fatbrain.
The Odd Couple and the Bomb (Score:1)
Also, physicists (or anyone else for that matter) can find the Meaning of Life on the shelf at your local video rental store (Monty Python).
Physics isn't the "search for truth" (Score:1)
QED and QCD? (Score:2)
I'm a little confused. As I understood it, Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Chromodynamics already pretty much merge Special Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps our protagonists are searching for a theory which would merge General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics? But if so, why not just use the standard name for such theories: Quantum Gravity?
I'm always suspicious of these kinds of books. IMHO you should be required to have a Ph.D. in the field you're writing fiction about :-). ObStory: A FOAF served as the math consultant for Good Will Hunting. He got the job when he overheard some of the players in a bar talking about a character pursuing the Nobel Prize in Mathematics, and was kind enough to let them know about the problem.
OTOH, maybe a degree from the venerable Bob's School of Quantum Mechanics would suffice...
Passion (Score:5)
I think that saying researchers can be very passionate is an understatement as well!
I don't know too many people doing serious academic research in any field who don't devote their lives to it. When you spend that much time working on the same thing it pretty much influences your every thought. I think the reason why the general public (and the media in particular) don't view researchers as passionate is because they don't approach the work of the researcher from the same perspective - most people just see it as a bunch of math/experimenting with little relevance to their lives in particular, while to the people doing the work it is a source of extreme fascination and unbounded possibilities.
Then again I'm sure the same thing can be said about any profession if the person is serious enough about it, but it just seems that people have always viewed scientists/mathematicians as shallow, robot-like people - a view that couldn't be any farther from the truth!
Re:QED and QCD? (Score:1)
Have you tried Desmond Bagley? (Score:1)
The older generation may remember him - but before there was Michael Crichton, there was Desmond Bagley.
Bagley's books were never very thick. But his writing style was great, and he did have a tendency to introduce science and engineering ideas as key elements of his plots - which is what attracted me to his writing. Its a shame that he is not more well known. Unfortunately, it has been so long since I've read any of his books that I cant remember the title of a single one that I read. (I found a number of titles on Amazon, and I think I read "Night of Error" and "The Enemy" there is no plot summary to confirm that)
Re:Stuff (Score:1)
Re:On the meaning of life (Score:1)
Besides, physicists are looking for the meaning, nature, and source of life. Physics is what governs how things behave and interact, and that is what governs life, after all. (And it doesn't always take a lot of hand-waving to get there, either; there's a lot of physics involved in biology and chemistry, for example. Then there are things like astronomy and geology and oceanography, which explore how the Earth came to have conditions to support life, etc.)
-Erf C.
Re:science is cool.... (Score:1)
Anyway, it didn't last very long, and even as a ten-year-old I could tell that it sucked.
Oh wow, according to IMDB [imdb.com], the actor was in Time Bandits, and committed suicide in 1990!
The coolest current show in that vein C.S.I. [cbs.com], which stands for "crime scene investigator". It's a cop show for people who think. Damn shame it comes on Fridays, though.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Re:On the meaning of life (Score:1)
Re:wonderful book (and another one) (Score:1)
Puttting C (Score:2)
It that supposed to be a positive comment? I liked The Great Train Robbery and The Andromeda Strain was OK for a first book. But his half-educated preachiness should drive any intelligent person away. And he has no talent at all for Science Fiction. I mean, in Looker, he had computer-generated TV shows where the actors where software-generated but the sets were still physical entities.
Somebody else here accuses Hollywood of butchering C's work. Get real. All of his books are written for Hollywood. He even chooses the actors he wants to play the parts before he starts writing! In JP, all they did was censor some of the girl-bashing (he's really down on the fems these days!), remove the stupid diatribes against linear math, and graft on the mandatory happy ending. Even that stupid car-up-a-tree sequence came from the book. I would have sworn that was pure Spielberg!
__________________
Re:wonderful book (and another one) (Score:1)
Jim, your resume should include "knower of stuff". i will remember the name Richard Powers now, just finished _3_Farmers_on_Their_Way_to_a Dance_ and must say Powers is one of the best writers of our time. Up there. No kidding.
C:\DOS
C:\DOS\RUN
RUN DOS.RUN
Re:On the meaning of life (Score:1)
We can never know if a theory is "true" or not
True .. good point. Nonetheless, this doesn't automatically throw physics into the category of metaphysics .. there is still a notable difference between the two.
Re:On the meaning of life (Score:1)
Erm, no he didn't. That was mainly Bacon and Descartes, who took ancient Greek philosophy and reworked it.
Never heard the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"?. He was referring to Descartes and Bacon, (and Copernicus and Galileo).
This book is not worth reading (Score:1)
Let me explain (this is going to be a longish post).
As fiction:
1) The plot twists are contrived. They detract from the force of the book which seemed to me to be the treament of various themes (love, success, family) from the particular vantage point academic physics. A noble intention, that we cannot focus on because Goldstein thinks physics is not interesting enough. She has to ply us w/ rhetorical tricks (like mysteries) to keep our interest. Pissed me off!
play w/ form and content - that is great - but don't cheapen it by making it some sort of mystery. Discuss it - analysize - this book obviously is trying to be postmodern - go whole hog!
Want to read a good book that integrates form w/ content a la QM go to Schrodinger's Cat (Robert Anton Wilson, although really does not give much an account of the physics). OR see Copenhagen (Frayn sp?) - the choregraphy and light effects is one of the most elegent treatments of form and content relationships I have seen.
2) The male protagonist (Justin Childs) is one dimentional. If I have to read one more book about immature, solopistic, geeky X (where X is a thoughtful person) I am going to be ill! (and that Childs is unknowingly handsome does not help - lots of geeks are attrative, here it seem, though, to be Goldstein's fantasy man). In support of Goldstein I will say that the supporting characters (in particular Child's parents) were facinating thumbnails.
As physics:
What Physics???
1) Really, aside from a cursory discussion of the problems w/ QM and Relativity, there was not much physics here. How disappointing. Example - psi: she begins the olympia physics prof asking what psi (see jon katz's intro) She does not give this question any meaning though. She does not discuss the actual scientific problem w/ interpreting psi as energy or probability. The notion of waves and encoding information (quantum computing)- the distinction between the formality of mathematics and the possible content filled world of QM (Childs is a mathematical physist). Don't get excited Goldstein does none of this.
In her hands physics is shallow and meaningless.
The reader is tempted to disregard the olympia prof as a one-dimentional (again) quack. Which seems to be Goldstein's intention, but based on false information she has provided (or concealed). The Olympia prof is disucssing a real physics problem, or even a real new age mumbo jumbo problem. We experience none of this however. Goldstein cannot illustrate that perhaps he is a physicist interested in the cosmic mysteries where as Childs is interested in the mathematical certainties.Why Not!??
One more point - Goldstein could discuss the mystical connotations of psi as well -psychic ability etc... or the etomological contructions of psi - leading to an interesting investigation of Eros and Psyche (see greek mythology)
This is just one example of the many facinating topics that Goldstein introduces, but does not elaborate on - What a tease!
She is just name dropping.
There are good books fiction books on physics - Einstein's Dreams is fascenating and riviting (Alan Lightman) - 'Properties of Light' is not.
So what was Goldstein trying to do? I don't know
perhaps illustrate that physists can love (have passion) too. (being snide) or sort of illustrate life as a gifted physicist - ok. But, this fails because she does not give any substative treatment of the physics she is using as a plot device.
Goldstein is a smart woman and qualified woman - Princeton PhD, macarthur grant - but does not manifest it in this book.
What ever she does - or thinks she is doing - she is not writing a good book. Don't waste your time or your shelf space.
And that is all I have to say about that.
MNF
Heisenberg Uncertainty (Score:1)
Frayn merely took advantage of the fact that in Bohr-Heisenberg encounters you may know the position of the meeting but not the momentum of the conversation.
Re:Zow! Sounds like something to put with Crichton (Score:1)
Whoa, Timeline blew chunks. What a boner compared to the Andromeda Strain. That book was so obviously written for a movie, 80% of it was detailed descriptions of action and choreography. Big yawn.
---
Mechanical Universe (Score:2)
"...Light" sounds interesting, but not because of the critique ("..lyrical and sureal..."? oh please). I mean, kudos to the scifi authors for writing scifi, but writing a book with QM vs GR as a key plot point just seems kinda weak. I dug Cryptonomicon's portrayal of Turing and his buds, but that wasn't a main plot in the book, it was just food for thought.
C'mon, either pen some really esoteric SciFi, or let's hear a story about how Newton shafted Leibnitz on the differential calculus.
I'm a HUGE fan of Dr David Goodstein's "The Mechanical Universe" series, and the little skist they filmed about the individuals are fascinating. Like Galileo being persecuted (or Bruno, for that matter). Hell, Kepler's madness would make a great story too.
Instead, NBC makes miniseries after miniseries about the old testament instead of recounting the real and documented tragedies that occurred among the history of science.
---
Re:bzzzt. hat trick is three things (Score:1)
Derivation of "Hat Trick" (Score:1)
Also cricket? (Score:1)
Re:bzzzt. hat trick is three things (Score:2)
this is probably what the reviewer means.
Re:On the meaning of life (Score:1)
"thus putting science on a solid basis of empirical observation and experimentation"
Which, as it turns out, seeks to obtain the meaning, nature and source of life.
That is exactly physics - the search for "truth". Are you saying that the terms "meaning of life" or "nature of life" automatically imply some sort of non-truth or metaphysics? I'm afraid I can't see why that would be the case at all.
Re:QED and QCD? (Score:1)
Re:On the meaning of life (Score:1)
Re:Relativistic quantum mechanics is nothing new (Score:1)
Re:On the meaning of life (Score:1)
Physics easily falls within this category; all of the big scientific achievements weren't produced by analysis alone, they took a flash of inspiration from a gifted individual, a revelation. Physics isn't all a "solid basis of empirical observation and experimentation", at least not with the great minds that have pushed us forward. There is a great amount of dogma and irrational arguments all the way up through the highest levels.
I've always disliked that myth that scientists are all people who produce their work solely on the laws of logic and standardized mathematics.
Recall that Einstein introduced a variable into his equations for the expansion of the universe, simply because he didn't like the way it would look without it. (the whole "God doesn't play dice with the universe" thing)
Wasn't this the David Bohm story in disguise? (Score:2)
Bohm was a Princeton prof who revived de Broglie's Pilot Wave formulation, showed that it made sense, and then at some point was McCarthyized and ended up in Britain, blacklisted from US universities.
In any case, I like Bohm. He stacks up as follows:
Reality is:
deterministic, nonlocal, nonjumpy: Bohm, de Broglie
nondeterministic, local but jumpy: Bohr, Heisenberg, most basic physics books
deterministic, local: Einstein, Simpson (Homer)
nondeterministic, nonlocal, solipsistic: New Age physics-interpretation gurus
(sorry, it's Friday, hard to dredge this stuff up off the cuff)
Another random note: Most people don't know that de Broglie actually came up with his wave theory of matter to reconcile special relativity and the primitive quantum ideas of the time. The waves were a compensating factor for the slowdown of "internal vibrations" due to SR as v approaches c. So, in effect, QM is already a reconciliation with SR. However he eventually discarded his "pilot wave" theory, not because it didn't work, but because it didn't fit his assumptions about reality.
For more info on Bohmian Mechanics, here [rutgers.edu] is a link to some current research.
Zow! Sounds like something to put with Crichton (Score:3)
Nice that a author recognises that and puts it works it into a book. TV is so full of cops, lawyers, business people that they overlook the fact that scientific researchers can be very passionate about their lines of work, too. If it ever reaches the silver screen, let's pray they don't do a Jurassic Park on it, dropping all the good bits and giving (Here comes the suspenseful part, get ready!!!) away the good parts.
--
Men in Black corollary: (Score:5)
bzzzt. hat trick is three things (Score:4)
the term "hat trick" comes from ice hockey where the fans will throw their hats on the ice if you score three goals in one game. Outside hockey, it is still generally reserved for accomplishing three things, not one. Rebecca Goldstein may have scored a goal with this, an amazing goal, but it's not a hat trick.
Re:How are the sex scenes? (Score:1)
Probing into big bangs? What kind of smut book is this? Are they talking about the Houston500?
=-=-=-=-=
"Do you hear the Slashdotters sing,
You mean? (Score:1)
Kierthos
Re:Zow! Sounds like something to put with Crichton (Score:2)
Re:Only if you believe (Score:1)
Or, according to a physics friend of mine, a religion. *shrug* He keeps talking about ten-foot poles fitting in five-foot barns, and I get headaches. As long as the universe minds it's business and doesn't fall apart, fine with me.
Eric Gearman
--
Fascinating (Score:2)
IMO, science is making a final transition in the mind of society from vocation to art. This book looks as though it would appease a wide variety of readers.
Re:Relativistic quantum mechanics is nothing new (Score:1)
wonderful book (and another one) (Score:4)
A few of the things that struck me: The gothic tone. The fragments of conversation that surface and resurface throughout the story, unrooted from time. The struggle between ways of understanding, between mathematics and poetry. Betrayals, great and small, and the fear of being betrayed again. The web of fathers and daughters and mothers and sons.
When I finished this book, I turned back to the first page and started rereading it immediately. I haven't done that since I was thirteen.
I also recommend Goldstein's Strange Attractors, a collection of interrelated short stories. Two of the stories feature a young mathematician named Phoebe who "studies the geometry of soap bubbles". Again, the stories combine a love of the world of ideas with a grounding in the world of people.
The New York Times [nytimes.com] has a pretty useful review of Strange Attractors but I can't get a working URL for it so if you're interested you'll have to do the search yourself.
List Price (Score:3)
Re:Wasn't this the David Bohm story in disguise? (Score:1)
Hey, Rocky! (Score:1)
Wow, something worth buying (Score:1)
I should get a bonus for publicizing my company
Re:Wasn't this the David Bohm story in disguise? (Score:2)
Damned incestuous academic types.
Perhaps what they need is a "Dark Trick" (Score:1)
Re:wonderful book (and another one) (Score:1)
Re:Men in Black corollary: (Score:1)
-------
Re:Mechanical Universe (Score:1)
Thats Turner doing those OT movies. NBC and Hallmark are the ones doing the (i think rather good) adaptations of Gulliver and Oddyssey and Alice in WL.
as for the tragedies of the history of science. I don't think anyone is yet ready for the movie of the week about "Feynman and the Deadly Gasket". Cause I'm not ready and thats the only real scientific tragedy that i can think of that anyone other than a geek would consider a tragedy.
Yes, you me and James Burke know all the stories but its just us for a reason. Cause no one else cares and we can't force them too.
Re:Ugh. (Score:1)
If anything, nihilism that has given me this outlook, for I see no intrinsic difference between Pro Wrestling [wwf.com] and "great literature" [randomhouse.com], except the scope of the portrayed conflict and the competance in the fiction's execution. Since my values are an aesthetic choice, and my reason is simply the attempt to reconcile those values (prejudices) with what I perceive, I choose the fiction that does the most to challenge my preconceptions, since that is the way things stay interesting.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Re:Stuff - I don't care to see your (Score:2)
Hmm..
Not one to take chances... Dear Santa, this book, thanks, Me
--
quantum mechanics and human nature (Score:1)
Anyway, sounds cool =)
Re:Zow! Sounds like something to put with Crichton (Score:2)
About 2 seconds after it came out!
--
Re:How are the sex scenes? (Score:1)
science is cool.... (Score:2)
I am also tired of every TV show being about corporate lawers and traders, we definately are missing media having to do with science.
It seems that science is 'out' and lawyers are in.
Don't get me wrong, I still like Matlock but everyone needs a little variety once and awhile.
Re:bzzzt. hat trick is three things (Score:3)
Grab.
Re:Passion (Score:1)
Ugh. (Score:2)
Kids, here's a tip from Uncle 3735928559: if you want to read stuff about scientists that isn't a soap opera, go to the section in the bookstore labeled "science fiction/fantasy". It's seperated from the dreck for your convience, but you'll still have to do some filtering. Look for names like Greg Egan, Gregory Benford, David Brin, Venor Vinge. These guys are honest-to-god scientists, so they write about what scientists like to think about. No, not about kissing ass to get tenure, or who's screwing who among the faculty, no, what they like to think about: big ideas. Important ideas. Stuff that matters.
You know, stuff like the structure of universe, the course of human history, the rolling advance of technology, the reasoning of ethics, and the nature of existence. It's not always very serious, either. In fact, most of the time it's pretty damn fun! You won't find much self-absorbed whining to drag it down like in other books. These books are to the point and written with vivid imagination.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Re:On the meaning of life (Score:3)
If you really want to see where physics came from, first take a look at Archimedes and Ptolemy, and maybe even a little Aristotle, and then read Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler and try to see what they're doing differently. Then, if you're up for something a bit more comprehensive, take a look at Francis Bacon's New Organon, which has as good a claim as any to founding the scientific method. Then, maybe, you'll be ready to tackle Newton.
(Sorry for that little outburst, I just hate to see intelligent people accepting the kind of oversimplified rubbish that passes for history in the schools. And yeah, I really would suggest reading all those things if you want to understand science, just as I'd suggest taking the time to learn your operating system thoroughly)
--Moss
Re:On the meaning of life (Score:3)
Well, for starters, all of mathematics doesn't... only some parts do, and those are usually chosen specifically for the task. And as to why: the most likely reason is that we ultimately derive mathematics from nature -- math (axiomatic systems, specifically) is developed through the application of logic, which is in a sense the refinement of natural language, which has evolved to describe the world around us accurately enough so that we can survive in it. It's not surprising that math explains the universe, it'd be surprising somehow if it didn't.
I think most of the mystical amazement at the fit of math to the universe is much like the amazement which comes when 1 + 2 = 3, and also 1 + 1 + 1 = 3... and it always works like that! (math simplified here, for the general public...) Sort of like the "anthropic principle" arguments regarding the values of the universal constants -- if they varied by even a little, the universe wouldn't support life! But if they varied a little, we wouldn't be here to notice it, either -- Doh!
Just because you can't see the structure underlying both mathematics and physics, doesn't mean that it's mystical... it might only mean that you're nearsighted, and keep being surprised when you run into things you didn't know were there, but were actually there all along.
---
Re:On the meaning of life (Score:1)
--Moss
Re:Relativistic quantum mechanics is nothing new (Score:2)
> weirdness which has had so many physicists scratching their heads for years.
Here's an example of how John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation [cam.ac.uk] eliminates weirdness:
"When we stand in the dark and look at a star a hundred light years away, not only have the retarded light waves from the star been traveling for a hundred years to reach our eyes, but the advanced waves generated by absorption processes within our eyes have reached a hundred years into the past, completing the transaction that permitted the star to shine in our direction."
Oh yeah, that's perfectly non-weird, alright!
Re:Relativistic quantum mechanics is nothing new (Score:1)
Re:Zow! Sounds like something to put with Crichton (Score:1)
Re:bzzzt. hat trick is three things (Score:1)
--
F$CK? (Score:1)
[diving for cover]
Re:bzzzt. hat trick is three things (Score:3)
"Hat trick" originated from the English game of Cricket. The term originally referred to a bowler retiring three consecutive batsman with three consecutive balls. This is roughly equivalent to a pitcher in baseball striking out three consecutive batters using only three pitches to each! This was considered quite an accomplishment and was traditionally rewarded with a hat.
The term is now used for other sports, always referring to an accomplishment of three. A popular use today is three goals by a single player in one game of hockey or soccer.
Only if you believe (Score:2)
quantum physics isn't really fiction?
Only if you learn it and understand it. Only then do you collapse its truth equation, at which point it becomes either fact or fiction.
Until then, it's both... and neither.
On the meaning of life (Score:4)
After all, physicists are seeking nothing less than the meaning, nature and source of life.
No, that is not physics; that is philosophy. You will recall that, although physics---and indeed science as a whole---was once termed `natural philosophy', a fellow named Newton came along and founded the notion of scientific method, thus putting science on a solid basis of empirical observation and experimentation, rather than metaphysical claptrap.