Descarga la app de Kindle gratuita y comienza a leer libros Kindle al instante en tu smartphone, tablet o computadora no se requiere un dispositivo Kindle.
Lee instantáneamente en tu navegador con Kindle para web.
Con la cámara de tu teléfono celular: escanea el siguiente código y descarga la app de Kindle.
Seguir al autor
Aceptar
Qed: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter Pasta dura – 1 enero 1986
Plazo | Por mes | costo de financiamiento | Total |
---|---|---|---|
24 meses | $83.22* | $578.76 | $1,997.29 |
18 meses | $102.84* | $432.65 | $1,851.18 |
12 meses | $143.98* | $309.24 | $1,727.77 |
9 meses | $184.09* | $238.31 | $1,656.84 |
6 meses | $265.50* | $174.48 | $1,593.01 |
3 meses | $510.19* | $112.06 | $1,530.59 |
Opciones de compra y productos Plus
- Número de páginas171 páginas
- IdiomaInglés
- EditorialPrinceton University Press
- Fecha de publicación1 enero 1986
- Dimensiones15 x 1.6 x 22.2 cm
- ISBN-100691083886
- ISBN-13978-0691083889
Comprados juntos habitualmente
Títulos populares de este autor
Descripción del producto
Críticas
Copyright 1985 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Críticas
Detalles del producto
- Editorial : Princeton University Press (1 enero 1986)
- Idioma : Inglés
- Pasta dura : 171 páginas
- ISBN-10 : 0691083886
- ISBN-13 : 978-0691083889
- Dimensiones : 15 x 1.6 x 22.2 cm
- Clasificación en los más vendidos de Amazon: nº566,251 en Libros (Ver el Top 100 en Libros)
- nº369 en Física Nuclear (Libros)
- nº589,876 en Libros Extranjeros
- Opiniones de los clientes:
Acerca del autor
Descubre más sobre los libros del autor, ve autores similares, lee blogs del autor y más
Opiniones de clientes
Las opiniones de los clientes, incluidas las calificaciones por estrellas de los productos, son útiles para que otros usuarios obtengan más información acerca del producto y decidan si es el adecuado para ellos.
Para calcular la calificación global por estrellas y el desglose porcentual por estrellas, no utilizamos un promedio simple. En cambio, nuestro sistema considera aspectos como la fecha de la reseña y si el autor compró el artículo en Amazon. También se analizaron las reseñas para verificar la fiabilidad.
Más información sobre cómo funcionan las opiniones de los clientes en AmazonMejores reseñas de otros países
In my opinion this is one of the best of Feynman's introductory physics books. He does close to the impossible by explaining the rudimentary ideas of Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) in a manner that is reasonably accessible to those with some physics background. He explains Feynman diagrams and shows why light is partially reflected from a glass, how it is transmitted through the glass, how it interacts with the electrons in the glass and many more things. This is done via his arrows and the rules for their rotation, addition and multiplication.
One reviewer has criticized this book because Feynman does not actually show how to determine the length of the arrows (the square of which is the probability of the action being considered occurring) and the how you determine their proper rotation. True, but as is stated in Feynman's introduction, this was never the intention of the book. If you want to learn how to create the arrows used in a Feynman diagram and use them to solve even the most rudimentary problem, you have to major in physics as an undergraduate, do well enough to get into a theoretical physics graduate program and then stick with the program until the second year, when you will take elementary QED. You will then have to take even more classes before you can solve harder problems. Clearly, it is not possible to do all this in a 150-page book aimed at a general audience. He does, however, give the reader a clear indication of what these calculations are like, even if you are not actually given enough information to perform one on your own. Feynman is fair enough not to hide the difficulties involved in actually computing things. He briefly discusses the process of renormalization (that he admits is not mathematically legitimate), which is required to get answers that agreed with experimental data and the difficulties in determining the coupling constants that are also required. In the end, he admits that there is no mathematically rigorous support for QED. Its virtue lies in the fact that it provides the correct answers, even if the approach to getting them involve a bit of hocus-pocus (again his words).
The last 20 pages of the book show how the approaches used in QED, as strange as they are, were used to create an analogous approach for determining what goes on in the nucleus of an atom. This short section shows complexity of nuclear physics and the role that QED has played in trying to unify a baffling plethora of experimental data. Unfortunately, this last section is largely out of date and is hopelessly complicated. Fortunately, it is only 20 pages long.
As mentioned in the beginning of this review, you should read Zee's introduction as well as Feynman's, before you get into the rest of the book. Zee puts QED into proper perspective. Along with wave and matrix mechanics, the Dirac-Feynman path integral method that is described in this book is another approach to quantum mechanics. Zee also points out that while it is a very powerful approach for many problems, it is unworkable for others that are easily solved by wave or matrix mechanics. Feynman's introduction is very important because he emphatically states that photons and electrons are particles and that the idea of their also being waves stems from the idea that many features of their behavior could be explained by assuming that they were waves. He shows that you can explain these effects using QED, without having to assume that they are waves. This eliminates the many paradoxes that are created when one assumes that photons and electrons exhibit dual, wave/particle behavior. QED is not, however, without its own complications. Some of this behavior depends upon the frequency of the photon or electron. Frequency is generally thought of as a wave property, but it can also be thought of a just a parameter that defined the energy of the photon or electron. This is a fundamental idea separating QED from wave based quantum theories. Feynman does not try to speculate why photons and electrons obey the rules of QED because he does not know why, nor does anyone else and we probably are incapable of knowing why. He is completely satisfied that his calculations agree with experimental data to a degree that is unsurpassed by any other theoretical physics calculation.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in getting an idea of what QED is all about and to those who seek a deeper understanding of physical phenomena. You will learn how QED explains many things, some of which from the basis for the paradoxes discussed at length in books such as "In search of Schrodinger's cat". Reading this book is a good antidote for the head spinning paradoxes described in that book. Feynman believes that they stem from using a poor analogy (that of waves) to explain the behavior of particles. As far as the deeper questions of why photons and electrons obey the ruled of QED, he does not care, so long as he can get the right answer. This may therefore not be the book for you if you are interested in this deepest WHY, but it definitely is if you want to know more about Feynman's powerful approach to quantum mechanics.
According to A.Zee (in his introduction to this book), readers of the book come in three flavours: physics students and potential students, professional physicists and the laypersons - my humble person among the later. I concur. For readers of the first two categories it's an excelant introduction to a bizare theory, students get "look and feel" while professional physicists get "ways to explain" the bizare thing to students and laymen. For a laymerson it's not so sweet.
A laymen is particularly fond of critical experiments - like that of Michelson-Morley measuring the speed of light. You cannot really discuss it. This is hard reality. For a laymen, it's interesting to see how a theory builds up on grounds of such an experiment.
Feynman in this book introduces us to an interesting experiment of partial reflection of light, supposed to be proving that light behaves like particles. It's surprising, that such a profound scientist brings up an experiment that rises more doughts then clarifications. Namely: Feynman measures light intensity with a photomultiplier, which has inherent limitation of being able to measure the presence of light only if the later is able to rip off a single electron. Feynman conclusion is that light comes in finate quantities called photons. This is of course wrong, because the instrumentation used does not allow for other measurement. Such experiment proves nothing. To explain it, it's sufficient to take "wave" nature of light. Light's classical interference and the total energy of a light-wave, which is proportional to the square of electrical/magnetic amplitude of that ware, will be responsible for probability of ripping off an electron at the detector. That's it. No need for QED.
What classical theory cannot explain, is that electron have the very same "wave-nature". ... and this is the mystery of nature. This is where we need QED. There are experiments of a single electron passing through two distinct holes at the same time - like interfering solely with itself. No "normal" particle can do that. Only waves can. This is why we need those "probability interference", not because we need to explain the behavior of light.
The "particle" nature of light needs to be brought in, to explain to other fenomena: a) the electromagnetic emission from a black body, and b) atoms *not* emitting electromagnetic waves.
Then again. A real "critical experiment" in favor of QED, would be an experiment with *neutral* particles showing up the same "wave" behavior as electrons. I might be wrong here, since I'm just a laymen and I don't follow professional publications, but I haven't heard of an experiment with a neutral particle interfering with itself on passing through two diafragms. A reference to such an experiment is profoundly missing from the book.
Finally there is this last issue of what exactly "a theory" is, and what "a theory" isn't. Physicists tend to call QED a theory. But in fact it's just a "toolchain" deviced on grounds of a theory of "uncertainity". Elaborating this I'd like to bring up Ptolemaic "theory" of epicycles as an example. Just like QED, epicycles was just a "toolchain". It was build on grounds of a theory, that Earth is in the center of the Universe. The QED toolchain is build on grounds of "uncertainity theory" which states, that the fact, that when at sufficiently small distances, you cannot distinguish your tools from the objects you measure; the impair is not your limitation, but it's *the* reality. The "probabilistic toolchain" suits this theory perfectly, and for years. This does not mean, that the theory may not yet prove wrong. But even if the theory proves wrong, its toolchain should remain valid just like epicycles do. Nothing stops you from calculating positions of planets using epicycles, today. Naturaly today they'll come from "good theory" and will reflect mathematical transformation from one frame of reference (Sun) to another (Earth). And the cycles will not be cycles but elipsis, and probably taking into account Einstain General Relativistics. But having your orbits from EGR, after transformation, you can do your epicycles just fine. The theory is long proved not valid, while its toolchain still remain "in force".
So, for anybody wanting to get his hands dirty with "contemporary epicycles" (the toolchain called QED), this book is a perfect introduction. It presents the problem using analogies known from daily life ("the small arrows") ... which you will really need for sanity checking your calculations when the hard stuff (math) gets on board.
I's a shame I haven't noticed this book before. Its tasty. The "small arrows" are invaluable, although the experimental backing is somewhat missing.
I know of only one - Richard Feynman. Perhaps there are more, and I hope there are, because we need more like him. For instance we definitely need a Richard Feynman now to distill the rapid progress we are making to understand how life works. It only takes a glance through any leading journal, be it "Science" or "Nature" to realize that - such rapid progress filling us with overwhelming sense of insurmountable fragmentation.
If this sounds hyperbole, here is the meat that substantiates the hyperbole
1) If you have looked from inside a room through a glass window out into a garden, and seen your own image ( a ghostly version of you) and ghostly images of the other objects inside the room with you, all superimposed outside mingling with the garden, have you wondered how that happens? (Feynman explains this partial reflection mystery in detail - it still remains a mystery)
2) When you look at the little dirty oily puddle on the road, shimmering with wavy curves of colorful patterns, have you wondered how that happens, except from some vague mental mapping - oh that must be the rainbow effect!
3) If you did a course on physics, and learnt how a convex lens focuses light to a particular point and can recall the formula like me, without even thinking a second (1/f = 1/u + 1/v), but have no idea why it should magically focus a distant object to a point?
4) If you felt unconvinced about some vague explanation of why a mirage happens. You realize you are unconvinced, when you have to explain it to your child - it sounds, to your own dismay, so wishy washy.
5) If you learnt that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection, and lived all your life taking it to be axiomatic.
6) If you found a coin at the shallow end of a swimming pool and bent in to pick it, only to find it is not where you thought where it was when you saw it from above water (you realize your hands are way off the target once you are in water), and you laugh inside "oh it is refraction!". But do you really know what causes refraction apart from some reasoning that light "bends" in water. By the way, water feeding birds don't fumble like us - they compensate for refraction and pick the "target" one shot.
7) If you have learnt over the years to compartmentalize the macro forces we experience in our daily lives as different forces - mechanical force, elastic force, frictional force, etc. wouldn't it be exhilarating to know that all these macro forces, at the atomic level, simply arise from one force - electromagnetic force, or more specifically, the interaction of electrons with photons.
I am stopping at 7, just to be shy of 10 - lest it take any religious connotations, though in reality it is more than 10.
This great book inspired me to create an interactive animation of one of the key experiments Feynman explains in Chapter 3, "Electrons and their interactions" that brings out the strangeness of matter at atomic level. Just Google "hoxya double slit" to get to my interactive animation. Needless to say, it is just a teaser. You have to buy this great book for the full experience. If we were to have a "classics list" for science, then this book would be a strong contender for first place.
I have read this amazing booklet as a non-physicist having certain questions from the point of view of philosophy and biology.
NOT REPEATING ALL THE PRAISES
As I could see there are a lot of good words about this text and Feynman as a person and as professional physicist. I will not repeat all these niceties.
PHYSICS AND NON-PHYSICS
What counts for me is the question to which extend physics does help to understand fundamental questions in other disciplines, in this case biology (including here variants like evolutionary biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics, and astrobiology). Clearly, it was not the intention of Feynman in his booklet to talk about the relationship between physics and biology (like Erwin Schroedinger did or Paul Davies), but to illustrate what QED is about as he understands it. But indirectly he gives some interesting answers which can help Biology.
FROM MATTER TO LIFE
Biology starts with something which is called 'life'. Until today there is no clear cut definition of this term available. But there is one 'core' property which most authors relate to life, this is the ability to 'reproduce' a given structure and thereby introduce some 'changes' by chance. This 'functionality' is bound to a complex machinery of molecules which as such are complex too. The way from 'simple' atoms to this kind of biologically relevant molecules is embedded in what is called 'chemical evolution'. Because the observable functionality of reproducing units can not be explained by the known properties of the involved 'parts' (nobody has a really sufficient model until now) there arise fundamental questions about the 'nature' of the 'matter' which allows such challenging processes and structures.
HELP FROM QED?
As Feynman states in his booklet, QED covers "... all the phenomena of the physical world except the gravitational effect ... and radioactive phenomena...And, as I already explained, the theory behind chemistry is quantum electrodynamics".(p.7f) Thus, one should expect to find some answers supported by QED for the fundamental questions of biology. But as one can see, if one has read through the booklet, these answers are not yet available, not those, which are needed. Even worse, one can see that QED is still struggling with many serious problems, which diminish a hope of a quick support strongly. As Feynman himself points out very clearly, there are serious problems with the calculations of the exact numbers, with the application of certain used mathematics (geometrical models) , of the self-consistency of the whole apparatus (pp.128-130,138), with the 'mysterious repetitions' of particles which have the same properties but heavier masses (pp.145, 147), the highly speculative character of many trials for better models (p.150), with the integration of gravitation (p.151), with the complete missing of any explanation of the numbers of the real masses (p.152), to mention a few.
I like this booklet a lot, not because it has nice illustrations of a complex subject matter, but because the clarifications it brings about do enable a better understanding of the 'limits' of the available models. This is the most important contribution we need after having 'climbed up' the ladder of basic understanding. And there seems to be a very long way to go until we will receive some support from physics for the most complex material structures we could find in the universe until now.
WHAT HAS TO BE DONE?
Clearly we should not 'stand still' with niceties of the past...-:)