FOLLOW-UP: Rebutting the New York Times Review of "A Universe From Nothing"

Somehow a few months ago, my family discovered the existence of this blog, and the first post they read was this one, for which this post is a follow-up. They then bought the aforementioned book for me so that I could read it and perhaps understand the criticisms laid out in the New York Times article that I rebutted.

Well, I read the book. It was a fairly interesting read. Having taken the class 8.033 — Relativity, I would say that everything up to around the middle of the book is stuff I've seen before in the context of general relativity. After that comes some stuff that is new to me, like the ideas behind inflation, virtual particles, and how multiverses can be explained within the framework of quantum field theory. They were all new and fairly strange ideas, but I accepted them fairly easily because it was clear how they fit into the framework of quantum field theory. After finishing the book, I went back to read the book review as well as my rebuttal of it, and I have to say that in many ways, the book review looks even slightly more ridiculous than before, and I'm actually quite happy with the assessment I laid out about a year ago.

Read More

Rebutting the New York Times Review of "A Universe From Nothing"

I was talking to my family today, and they mentioned that this week, Stephen Colbert interviewed physicist/author Lawrence Krauss on The Colbert Report, where he promoted his new book "A Universe From Nothing". They also talked about how they saw a review of this book on the New York Times that seemed rather critical of it, and they suggested that I read that review.

In fairness, I have not read the book, nor have I (yet) watched the interview on that show. But reading this article made me laugh and cringe simultaneously, and I am going to lay out why. I should also say that the book, which is supposed to explain how quantum field theory lays the groundwork for the universe springing from nothing, is for a popular audience. I would say that among the scientific community, the predictions of relativistic quantum field theory have been accepted for decades. Follow the jump to see what else I think about this.

Read more »

Read More

Book Review: "Fermat's Last Theorem" by Simon Singh

(Sorry, this time I don't have a picture of the book, though the owner is the same relative who lent me the books The Undercover Economist and Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya.)
And with this, I have read all of Simon Singh's books. Yay! (I think.)
I really enjoyed this book as much as his other two books. The passages talking about the cracking of the Enigma encryption system were like déjà vu after reading The Code Book. I also enjoyed reading about all of the tension and drama surrounding the various developments and failures leading up to the proof of Fermat's last theorem (though there seem to have been an awful lot of people who took their own lives in the process, unfortunately). It reminds me very much of Big Bang, as the material is presented in a very accessible format, and the focus is more on the developments and characters involved (as the end result is already known from the start).
I would recommend this to anyone even remotely interested in math, history, and puzzles. For readers in the US, however, note that while the UK edition is called Fermat's Last Theorem, the US edition is called Fermat's Enigma.

Read More

Book Review: "Big Bang" by Simon Singh

(CC-BY-NC-SA Das U-Blog by Prashanth)
This was actually given to me as a gift by the same relative who has The Undercover Economist. I will also say that I have read The Code Book, one of Simon Singh's other books, but it has been a few years since I read it, so I will not be reviewing it any time soon.
Singh starts with an overview of creation myths and the use of reason and science to determine whether the sun goes around the Earth or vice versa. He continues with the heightening and resolution of the debate between the geocentric universe and heliocentric universe camps, and introduces the debate between those who believed in an eternal universe and those who believed the universe had a moment of creation. He brings in the developments of relativity and the atomic model, the measurement of the speed of light, and the rise and fall of the ether hypothesis to lay the foundations for the theory of the Big Bang. He also discusses the debate between whether the Milky Way is our only galaxy or whether there are many galaxies separate from the Milky Way and its subsequent resolution, and connects this to the use of spectroscopy to show redshifting of galaxies to bolster the case for the Big Bang over the eternal universe theory. He continues with further developments in atomic theory and the postulation of CMB radiation (radiation coming from the farthest reaches of the universe dating back to 300000 years after the Big Bang) to frame the debate now between supporters of the Big Bang theory and supporters of the eternal universe theory, which had by then morphed into the Steady State theory (which held that the universe was expanding, but galaxies were forming in the voids as expansion happened, so the overall composition of the universe remained constant). He concludes with the solution of the nucleosynthesis problem (how elements heavier than helium could be formed in the early stages of the universe), the detection of CMB radiation, and the detection of tiny density variations in the early particle soup as the final pieces of evidence necessary to secure the Big Bang theory as the correct one. In the epilogue, he discusses some missing parts of the Big Bang theory, as well as its religious/philosophical implications.
In a sentence, I really like this book. (That was the sentence. The rest is extra.) It's a great overview of all of the science that led to the acceptance of the Big Bang as the dominant theory regarding the origin and state of the universe, and on top of that, it talks about all of the characters involved in its development. It is a fairly large book, but any formulae used are clearly explained in layperson's terms, and there are a lot of helpful illustrations tied with such formulae. More interesting than that, though, is the presence of a brief, illustrated summary section at the end of each chapter (because each chapter is approximately 80 pages long). This really helps to remind one of what one has read at the beginning of the chapter and how it ties in to later parts of the chapter. I also like how it talks about the arguments between people without just focusing on the science, as this adds a more human element to the history of it all. I would recommend this to anyone even remotely interested in the subject.
Follow the jump to read the rest.
Read more »

Read More

Book Review: "The Undercover Economist" by Tim Harford

(CC-BY-NC-SA Das U-Blog by Prashanth)
This is also a borrowed book (from the same relative that lent me the book Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya). That said, I will say right off the bat that this is a far superior book in terms of writing style and quality.
I took an AP Economics course this past year, so I was somewhat familiar with most of the concepts presented in this book beforehand. However, when I read the book, I realized what I had been missing.
My class's questions didn't have any apparent relation with what was going on in the world. Why should I care if XYZ Corporation's average variable cost is higher than the market price of the good it sells? One is truly an economic theorist if one weeps at the thought of a hypothetical company shutting down to minimize costs. On the other hand, this book relates economic concepts to things that matter, like why coffee is sold at different prices and why different land areas fetch different prices.
Harford first talks about the ideas of rents and profits, continuing with the various functions of prices as signals and the various means companies try to extract different prices from different customers (for the same product). He then talks about externality taxes and subsidies, continuing with market failures occurring due to the presence of inside information (i.e. information that one side but not the other doesn't). He then continues with a discussion on the stock market and on bidding wars. He concludes with discussions on why poor countries remain poor and on the effects of globalization on various countries, both rich and poor.
In short, I am convinced. By using relevant, practical examples in explanations of every concept introduced, he has convinced me that while the free market can solve most problems, government intervention is generally required when externalities show up (and these can't be solved by market negotiations); this is a very reasonable-sounding idea, without resorting to the ideologies of either "government is always bad" or "markets are always harmful".

Read More

Book Review: "Bursts" by Albert-László Barabási

(CC-BY-NC-SA Das U-Blog by Prashanth)
Some of you may be wondering why I've written 3 posts today. Well, as I'm staying at my relatives' house, these relatives are at school or work during the day, so I don't really have a whole lot to do; hence, I've been reading a lot and blogging a lot. (I wish I had a more consistent Internet connection to download and try out some Unixoid distributions as well, but while I'm at it, I might as well wish for a Prancing Horse (Ferrari, for automobile non-enthusiasts).) Yeah, yeah, I have no life.
Also, some of you may be wondering why I've been putting up "(CC-BY-NC-SA Das U-Blog by Prashanth)" at the beginning of these book reviews. "CC-BY-NC-SA" refers to a Creative Commons 3.0 license where you can view, modify, and distribute the work as you like so long as you attribute me ("Das U-Blog by Prashanth") as the original creator, distribute derivative work for non-commercial purposes, and license derivative work with a similar/Creative Commons-compatible license allowing for similar unlimited viewing, modification, and redistribution.
This entire blog's content is already licensed as such. (The license is at the bottom of the blog page.) That said, the license on the pictures may be unclear. I have already provided a citation in the form of a link and the name of the original site for all pictures I have used on this blog that aren't mine. If the picture has no citation/link, it is mine and it is licensed under a Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike license. I know that a lot of my older pictures (mostly from Unixoid reviews) don't have this explicit license statement, so I felt it was good to make this clear now (rather than never). From now on, any picture that I put up that is mine (i.e. is not from another link) is licensed under a Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike license.
Anyway, sorry to keep you waiting. Follow the jump for a review of the book.
Read more »

Read More

Book Review: "Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya" by V. S. Narayana Rao

(CC-BY-NC-SA Das U-Blog by Prashanth)
This is actually a relative's book; this relative has let me borrow the book for the time being.
I must confess that I haven't read the entire book. But there's a reason for this.
With parents from Karnataka, I am of course proud of Sir M. Visvesvaraya's contributions to the industrialization of India. I am of course amazed by his physical and mental agility even through his 90s.
Yet, I am pained when I read this book. As a work written by an author and journalist, no less (as opposed to an engineer or contemporary with questionable English writing skills), this is one of the worst biographies I have ever written (which should be taken with a grain of salt, as I haven't read too many biographies).
For one, the writing style is way too choppy. The author keeps jumping from Visvesvaraya's life to some background about one of Visvesvaraya's work sites without any transition at all.
More importantly than that, though, is that it portrays Visvesvaraya like a saint. It talks about how morally pure he was and how he always won somehow or the other in the face of adversity (and if Visvesvaraya loses in some dispute, the author spins it to make it look like it was Visvesvaraya's gain and the adversary's loss). While it may be true that Visvesvaraya was as morally pure and principled as described in the book, I am immediately suspicious of a book that doesn't even attempt to offer any kind of criticism. Even at the end (which I have read), the book is almost apologetic that Visvesvaraya had to die after living up to the ripe old age of 102 (and even here, the book is inconsistent with itself, because his given lifespan doesn't correspond to the difference between his birth and death dates).
If you come upon this book, please save yourself the trouble of reading it. It's not worth reading at all.

Read More

Book Review: "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson

(CC-BY-NC-SA Das U-Blog by Prashanth)
I had actually started reading this book over a year ago but never had the time to get past the first few chapters, so when I picked it up again just over a month ago, I decided to read it in full, from the beginning.
I guess another appropriate title for this would be "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Nonfiction) by Not Douglas Adams". It really is a comprehensive guide to atomic physics, astronomy, chemistry, and biology for the layperson.
Bryson starts by discussing the origins of the universe and its measurement, both in terms of age and size. He continues by going into the developments of measurements of the Earth's age, chemistry, and modern physics. He then segues into the origins of life, continuing into full-blown biology, and finally concludes with a history of mankind.
Even though this is not a textbook by any means, I thoroughly enjoy it as an overview of the sciences for several reasons.
First, Bryson always tries to engage the reader by making the tone very conversational and by (rightfully) assuming that the average reader has no prior technical expertise in any of the fields; in fact, part of the humor comes from Bryson being humorously scornful of topics that are too technical for the average reader to understand. More important than that, though, is that Bryson makes the whole study of science more human by keeping the technical aspects at a minimum and focusing more on the personalities that have discovered the various sciences. For example, Carl von Linné (better known as Carolus Linnaeus) is hailed as the person who saved taxonomy by introducing the revolutionary 7-tiered classification system. However, I never knew that he was ridiculously obsessed with the methods that sometimes start human reproduction (I will not say that word here because this blog may then be blocked by parental controls). Those few pages of the book were enormously entertaining and enlightening (in that they shed light on the kind of character Linnaeus was). There are many other such pages of the book. Through it all, Bryson succeeds in bringing science to the layperson through his ability to show a very human side of science. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn a little more about science but finds conventional resources too technical (and hence, too inaccessible).

Read More

Book Review: "Wired for War" by P. W. Singer

(CC-BY-NC-SA Das U-Blog by Prashanth)
I actually got the idea of getting this book after watching an episode of The Daily Show with John Stewart and its interview of this book's author (who was there to promote this very book). It piqued my curiosity because I am very much into computers and robots.
Let me say that this book, just like the robots it discusses, is "frakin' cool".
The book starts out by describing typical scenes of robotic battle in Iraq and Afghanistan today alongside descriptions of the daily goings-on at the offices of the manufacturers of these robotic warriors. It goes on to discuss the history of robots and what constitutes robots in laypeople's terms. It continues to talk about how the development of the robotics sector is exponential rather than linear in pace; it then talks about future robotic warriors and their creators. To conclude Part One, the book discusses science fiction's influence on robotic development as well as the culture of roboticists who choose to conduct research while rejecting military funding for their research.
Part Two starts with a discussion of revolutions in military affairs (RMAs) and whether the computer, Internet, or robotics revolution would be the RMA du jour; it continues by talking about human-robot interactions on the battlefield when robots become adversaries, as well as when robots end up in the hands of enemies. It further discusses the decentralization of power with the advent of the Internet and robotics and how power is shifting away from governments and towards individuals, organizations, and contracting companies. It then talks about how the public is becoming more apathetic towards the realities of war now that soldiers themselves are being separated from the battlefield, as well as what this change means for the soldiers and their families. It finally explores the possible scenarios of a robot revolt and the feasibility of programming ethics into robots.
It's a great read because it accurately conveys the excitement of the author in dealing with the subject. (Really, it's a great read because I'm into robots.) But there is one concern that I have that the book also does discuss: in today's warfare, the enemy is not fazed by the loss of their own life (in fact, such loss of life is revered as a sort of martyrdom), while the enemy looks upon our use of robotic technologies not with shock and awe at their technical prowess but with disdain at what they perceive is indicative of our cowardice. With that combination, we will never win.

Read More

Book Review: "In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto" by Michael Pollan

(image courtesy of Wikipedia)

This is actually the book I had to read to get credit for my high school gym class (I did not have to do any of the actual physical requirements for reasons obvious to those who know me personally). It's been a while since I've read the book, so this post will be relatively short.
It's an entertaining read, to be sure, and while I agree with the general guidelines given by the book, I believe that due to the current state of humanity (that is, we have far more people to feed than we did before processed foods came along, so food has to be cheap (and, as it stands now, not necessarily healthy) to maintain the current world population level), implementing many of Pollan's proposals can only be done by the wealthy (i.e. those who can afford to buy organic produce and the like). Also, several studies have shown that organic food is no healthier for one than conventional produce. It seems like what matters more is eating home-cooked food instead of processed/packaged food. Bill Clinton has lamented how in India, people have switched from eating the delicious (in my opinion) traditional meals to eating fast foods like McDonald's and the like, and that this is a major contributor to the rise of obesity and heart issues in India. (I will add that some of these problems already existed in India prior to the advent of multinational fast foods, owing instead to the over-reliance on refined rice as the primary energy-packed food.)
But more than that, I feel uncomfortable with Pollan's outright rejection of nutrition science, especially since analysis of vitamins in food has led to the eradication of many diseases caused by lack of vitamins. While it is true that incomplete science should not be used as a basis for prescribing diets (see, for example, the warnings against saturated fats leading to the prevalence of trans fats (due to overuse of partially hydrogenated oils)), neither should the incompleteness of the science mean by itself that the science should not be pursued further. I feel like Pollan is blinded by his own zeal; where he means to say that dietitians should not enthusiastically convey new studies' recommendations especially when the studies are very focused [on just one aspect of a certain food type], he instead essentially says that the studies themselves should not be carried out at all.

Read More