Physics for People Who Think They Don’t Like Physics by Jerry S. Faughn and Karl F. Kuhn (review)

I54 Book .\ thrust ofthis book IS to caution against too \trcing ii belief in thc correctness of present ideas. and areas of controversy are highlighted. Narlikar emphasizes that our current models depend crucially on an understanding of the behaviour of matter far outside the laboratory and in conformance with 'the laws of science known today'. Future discoveries in physics must be reflected in models for the behaviour of the universe as a whole. Indeed it is a sign of the current vitality of astronomy that modern cosmologists. such as Steven Weinberg and Stephen Hawking, are also in the forefront of current research into the submicroscopic nature of matter. In summary. the book provides an extended and interesting contrasting view of the many texts on cosmology available at various technical levels;such texts. which present a conventional and perhaps deceivingly coherent picture of the present consensus on cosmology, ought however to be consulted. The book can be recommended to the general reader who may enjoy the discussions of the fundamental limitations of this consensus and the development of Narlikar's intuition that the universe is far queerer than is presently supposed. 'The universe presents one aspect to the philosopher. another to the scientist. and still another to the artist', and I think Narlikar would argue that all three will be involved for many generations to come before the exciting questions ofcosmology can be answered with certainty. Physics for People Who Think They Don't Like Physics. Jerry S Faughn and Karl F. Kuhn. Saunders, Philadelphia. Penn.. London and Toronto. 1976 570 pp.. illus. f 11.25. Rcviewed by Grace Marmor Spruch* The Prcflice states that the book is intended I'or nonscience majors. is conceptual. nonmathematical and sufficient for ii two semester course. I t continues: 'Such a description fits a multitude of books now available.How.then, is this one different?First. the authors have attempted to write in an informal. conversational style. avoiding pompous. stilted language. In support of this infornialitj. ii number of cartoon-style drawings appear in the margins. and bits of humor are scattered throughout the text material. At first glance these may appear to be simple. corny .joke\. hut ii more c;ircful examination will reveal that that is precisely M hat they are.'That is also precisely what is wrong with the book It is truc that physics books are not noted for their literary elegance. The precision with which concepts must bc expressed would scciii to preclude stylistic grace for most authors. However. the 'informal' language referred to above is imprccise. often sloppy. riddled with cliches. and is the kind of shorthand that. while tolerated in speech. is hardly ever put to paper even by those who speak it. I have no objection t o colloquialisms ~~ provided that they are sophisticated. Their use merely to avoid technical terminology adds nothing to the reader's comprehension . Examples o f the 'inlbrmality' are: 'Questions. Until you have spent some time with ii four year old child you have not experienced questions.' In a section addressed 'To the Student'. thestudent isinformed that thesection'hasacurseon it such that any instructor rending i t will grow hair on his her eyeballs'. The 'informality' becomes more serious in the presentation of scientific material. iis in: 'Isanc Newton . . . presented the theory of gravitation which is in general use today'. This statement might well be taken by ii novice to indicate that Ncwton's theory ofgravitation was preceded by another. And the statement of the theory. before i t is qualified ii page later. would give Ambrosc Bierce complete justification for hi.s definition of gravitation in Tlrc Dri,i/i Dic./ioritrrj~'Gravitation. n. The tendency of all hodies to approach one another with a strength proportional to the quantity of matter they contain-the quantity of matter they contain being ascertained by the strength of their tendency to approach one another This is :I lovely and edifying illustration of how science. having made A the proof of B. makes Bthe proof of A: *Dept. of Physics. Rutgers University, Newark. NJ 07102, U S.A. An example of the 'humor scattered throughout the text' is in the presentation of circular...