Frank CloseRecensioni

Book is good. But I am not capable to wrap my head around the idea of nothingness. It gave me a headache. I need some tea.

Definitely worth reading...and may even require re-reading to grasp it all. But Frank Close has certainly given me a lot to think about and given me more of a grasp of "the Void" that I ever had before. When I was trying to explain to my friend Miles, what it was all about, he had difficulty grasping the idea that something could be a vacuum yet have "something" in it. I think the Physicists need to work on the terminology a bit because they are using the term "vacuum"to mean different things. And I recall one Physicist, Kraus...author of a world from nothing debating fiercely on TV when people pointed out to him that when he spoke of "nothing" he was still obviously talking about "Something".....be it virtual fields or aether or whatever. But he seemed to merrily dismiss all the objections and claim his vacuum had no matter (and, I think, not electromagnetic fields) so it was, indeed nothing.
I was fascinated by Close's descriptions of the void. (Sometimes his language is hard to follow. But p103: "after removing matter, fields, everything to reach a void" the emptiness that ensues [when viewed at large scale is not reflected at the] atomic scales where the void is seething with activity, energy and particles"....."Particles can radiate energy (eg in the form of photons) in apparent violation of energy conservation, so long as tht energy is reabsorbed by other particles within a short space of time". And p108, Imagine a region of vacuum, for example a cubic metre of outer space, devoid of all of the hydrogen and other particles removed. Can it really be devoid of of matter and energy? In the quantum universe the answer is no.......You might remove all matter and mass, but quantum uncertainty says there exists energy: energy cannot also be zero. To assert there is a void, containing nothing of these, violates the uncertainly principle. There is a minimum amount known as zero point energy, but that is the best you can do..... You can remove all the real particles until you reach the ground state, but quantum fluctuations will still survive. The quantum vacuum is like a medium....And something that I don't understand..."The zero point motion of electromagnetic fields is ever present in the vacuum'....and electron in flight wobbles slightly as it feels the zero point motion of the vacuum electromagnetic fields"....and something more that I didn't understand: Dirac's idea of the vacuum is of being filled with an infinite number of electrons who's individual energies occupy all levels from negatively infinite up to some maximum value. Such a deep calm sea is everywhere and unnoticeable unless it is disturbed. We call this normal state, the ground state which is our base level, relative to which all energies are defined". So is Close endorsing this view or is it just Dirac'wes view? I remain confused. If there are electrons in the vacuum ...then it has particles in it....Close says that "the energy fluctuations in the vacuum can spontaneously turn into electrons and positrons but constrained by the uncertainty principle to last for a brief moment of less than 10 to the power of minus 21". This time is so small that light would only have been able to travel about one thousandth the span of a hydrogen atom.....and it's possible to observe this "pair creation" in a bubble chamber. The two virtual particles thus becoming real.
Close suggests that the quantum vacuum is like a medium and never truly empty. It can be organised in different phases. Close uses the example of phase change in water going from liquid to ice and for magnetised iron that loses its magnetism above 900 degrees C.....though I don't really see how either of these relate to the vacuum. I guess he's just saying that we can expect the vacuum to have phases changes also. So his answer to the question..."Does nature allow a vacuum is NO (in that the void is actually filled with an infinite sea of particles together with quantum fluctuations) or YES ...there are many different types of vacuum, depending on how the quantum vacuum is organised".
The, on p136, we get the news that the favoured theory in physics is that the Higgs field pervades the vacuum and gives mass to the fundamental particles....not just to w and z bosons but to electrons quarks and other particles too. If this is true If this is true then in the absence of the Higgs field particles could never be stationary but would all travel at the speed of light. However, space is filled with the Higgs field. As you read this page you are looking through the Higgs field: photons do not interact with it and they move at the speed of light.

The Higgs field is indeed bizarre. Particles such as electrons travelling through space at speeds below that of light are doing so because they have mass, which they have gained as a result of interacting with the omnipresent Higgs field. Yet they continue to travel without resistance: Newton's laws work, the particles continuing to move at constant velocity as no external force appears to act on them. A partial answer to this conundrum comes if we realize that a particle's energy determines its velocity; as the Higgs field is the vacuum state of lowest energy, no energy can be transferred by the particle to or from the Higgs field, and so the particle maintains its speed. It is not possible to determine an absolute value of the velocity relative to the Higgs field.* [n the technical jargon: "The Higgs vacuum is a relativistic vacuum.']
I must confess that I find this most confusing. If an electron gets its mass by "interacting" with the Higgs field, then doesn't this mean that some sort of energy is involved because, from Einstein's equation, mass is equivalent to energy...so some external force appears to be involved ...else, why would electrons not travel at the speed of light?

Close throws in some interesting facts: the Higgs field exists only at temperatures below 10 to power 17 degrees C. (After the first trillionth of a second from big bang these conditions applied..giving masses to the fundamental particles). And as ripples in electromagnetic fields produce quantum bundles (photons) so too should the Higgs field manifest itself in Higgs bosons. And the Higgs boson itself "feels" the all pervading Higgs field and so has mass. It's been recently measured at 125 GeV.

The rule is that raising the temperature causes structure and complexity to melt away giving a 'simpler system. Water is bland; ice crystals are beautiful.

The universe today is cold; the various forces and patterns of matter are structures frozen into the fabric of the vacuum. We are far from the extreme heat in the aftermath of the Big Bang, but if we were to heat everything up, the patterns and structures would disappear. Atoms and the patterns of Mendeleev's table have meaning only at temperatures below about 10,000degrees C; above this temperature atoms are ionized into a plasma of electrons and nuclear particles as in the Sun. At even hotter temperatures, the patterns enshrined in the Standard Model of particles and forces, where the electron is in a family of leptons, with families of quarks and disparate forces, do not survive the heat. Already at energies above 100 GeV, which if ubiquitous would correspond to temperatures exceeding 10 to power 15 degrees, the electromagnetic force and the weak force that controls beta-radioactivity melt into a symmetric sameness.

In his last chapter, Close seems to indulge in various flights of fantasy...like a lot of physicists seem to with "accessible" books. He ranges over string theory, multiple universes, multiple (around ten) dimensions. Then toys around with the basic idea behind the vacuum...that positive energy within matter can be counterbalanced by the negative sink of the all pervading gravitational field such that the total energy of the universe is potentially nothing. When combined with quantum uncertainty this implies that everything is indeed some quantum fluctuation living on borrowed time. Everything may thus be a quantum fluctuation out of nothing. And then he throws in his odd bit of mysticism...."what encoded the quantum possibility into the void"? And god gets a mention. OK so he doesn't have all the answers but this is more or less the first time that he admits that. A good book in so many ways yet I'm left with the feeling that I've been conned. That Frank was going to let me into the secrets of the void and it turns out that he knows a bit ...but certainly doesn't explain to my satisfaction how the Higgs field is interacting with particles to give mass. Nor does he explain how...with all these particles bobbing on and out of existence...how do we get permanency ...for anything... are various parts of me bobbing in and out of reality?

Despite these objections I still rate it as a five star book.

Not the best vsi book I've read, not one I remember well, though well worth the time it took to see what Close wanted to discuss.

This fine volume combines particle physics with human interest. It has 3 main parts, the first on the 1960s theoretical work predicting what eventually became known as the Higgs boson and its role in giving mass to elementary particles, the second on the decades-long effort to validate the theory experimentally, and the third on the Nobel and other prizes recognizing the importance of it all to physics and cosmology. There is also a very good epilog on as-yet-unanswered questions.

Detailed look at how the Higgs Boson was theorised and then finally discovered. I'd like to re-read the first more mathematical chapters as these were intuitive and most interesting. For me at least the portrayal about Higgs as a man, his idiosyncrasies and the ins and outs about the various publications and precedence were all a little bit dull. Good to have it on record though, I guess.½

Interesting part of US/UK/USSR Atom bomb history. Well researched book which fills in a lot of the story gaps about the atomic spies. This is the history of Mr. Fuchs. He was a German born genius with a warped morality.

Unfortunately this book is such dry reading that I finally quit before competition. I got through the important two thirds but was afraid I would die of old age before Fuchs was captured.

Really good book. There are a lot of gems in here, and some really good mental models for concepts that are difficult to picture in the mind's eye.

If you'll excuse a couple spoilers about the nature of the universe here, this book left me (and the author) with two big questions:

1) If the universe we know, with all of the laws of physics it contains, came from quantum fluctuations, then what coded the quantum fluctuations?

2) Was there a 'before the big bang' or does the universe just exist, with time being a concept imposed by our limited cognitive abilities?

If you're familiar the big discoveries in physics then this book may not teach you many new concepts. But the way the author describes some of the discoveries and the way he poses the remaining questions make this a really good read.

Too short to offer a good teaser or guide but it does what it says on the cover.

A book about nothing? Sure. This is a fun and interesting journey into the history of empty space and our perception of it. It deals with the human view as well as the science. Just the right length not to be tedious.

Here Close discusses the major theories of modern fundamental physics in terms that are simple and qualitative but also authoritative. He concludes with the conjecture that "in some future theory of everything, space and time will turn out not to be fundamental and will emerge from some deeper concept." (p 145) It's perhaps a little ironic, then, that earlier he says quite a bit about string theory but barely mentions loop quantum gravity; I'd suggest Carlo Rovelli's 2016/17 popularizations as follow-up reading.

I’ve got a theory that the rules of the universe ARE created by people thinking up theories about it. Although due to elitism bias, i am yet to receive any funding for my groundbreaking “hypothesis.” Fucking scientist bastards, getting paid for thinking about stuff they think I can’t understand... what a scam.

I suspect that a lot of the hostility and rejection of science by people who can't understand it is because it makes them feel stupid. It is, after all, fundamental to understanding how the world works. Some people are scientists; some people are not, but know what science is; but some people not only don't understand science, but don't know that they don't know, because they can't even see it. This is a bit analogous to being able to read. Some can go into a library and read in a few languages, some only in one, others can know what books are but not be able to read, and some don't actually know what books are and feel stupid, so pretend that they either don't exist or are some sort of conspiracy against them, which makes them feel important. There are theories around which involved such complex mathematics only a handful of people in the entire world can understand them. Peer review not much use here and enter this new age of egg-heads trying to “out-complexify” each other.

You have only 12 dimensions? ...... pffft... Look here, I have a closed equation which explains life, the universe, and everything with dimensionality to the power of infinity minus 1. Theories aren't always testable however science tends to disregard theories which aren't testable because it does experimental physicists out of a job (and if its not testable then it becomes a matter of belief rather than science). Quite extreme theories are potentially needed to displace quantum/mechanics/relativity because they tend to be harder to test. The Bohm interpretation of Quantum mechanics offers explanations for things standard quantum mechanics doesn't explain but also produces identical results to standard Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics. Some disregarded it solely for that reason that it appeared to not be testable, though in recent years suggestions have been made for possible deviations from standard model results.

Take instance one of my favourite cases: Holonomics, i.e., the idea that the universe is a multidimensional projection of a two-dimensional universe, also partly due to Bohm, is also largely ignored because it appears to be untestable. Where theories are untestable, proponents tend to spend much of their time trying to come up with experiments that will allow them to be tested.
String theory has had a similar problem.

An important part of physics is figuring out how theories can be tested. As a pupil I was pretty good at mathematics and physics. So I'd conclude that our ordinary four dimensions plus the six extra dimension would result in a ten-dimensional universe. Would I be right? Indeed I’m frigging right! But there are other versions of string theory that call for differing numbers of dimensions. After 10, I believe 26 is the next mathematically credible number. But the questions is: “Will it make my cornflakes stay crispy in the milk?” Answer: “In the 5th dimension they will be crispy, in our dimension they will remain soggy. In the 6th dimension they will be a moonbeam. I'm sure I saw one of the extra dimensions doing a spot of shopping for the weekend, in Lisbon, last Thursday. It had nice legs and a cotton frock.”

String theory is the theory that matter, energy and women are made up of tiny strings. It states that whenever you put a set of perfectly arranged strings in any container, they will come out completely tangled, no matter what the arrangement or the container. The aforementioned three ingredients (plus lard that acts as the glue) give rise to various elaborate, sophisticated and highly complicated and yet subtly simple and non-functioning existences, such as: iPod headphones, Christmas Tree Lights, garden hoses, electric cords, string panties, shoelaces, my Kodi player, my Synology NAS, etc.; although surprisingly beautiful and functioning constructions have also appeared, such as horse intestines, beetle legs, belly-button fluff, the area behind your computer desk still has a lot of trash from the last century. The answer to that is loop quantum gravity; an opposing theory to string theory and one that has concrete evidence including the Higgs-Boson you happen to have heard about.

Seriously. Something that I've always found difficult to get my head round in "simplified" explanations of multidimensional physics is the concept of dimensions rolled up so small that we can't perceive them. (And I'm well into mathematical physics, though not this specialty). An explanation I've come up with, with the request that it be criticised and corrected if possible, and the hope that it might be accurate enough to help:

Imagine a creature living in a perceived one-dimensional world, a cotton thread (not necessarily straight as viewed by an outside 3D observer). The creature will only see one dimension (with 2 directions, forwards and backwards). Its senses are not sensitive enough to discover this, but actually the thread is 3-dimensional, with the perceived dimension of extension along the thread, although the thread has a diameter and an interior, so that expressing a position microscopically would require 3 dimensions (in polar coordinates extension along, distance from the centre, and angle relative to some arbitrary radial axis). The values of the 2nd and 3rd coordinates would always be infinitesimally small (for a very thin 1D-in-3D universe), and space would be seen as one-dimensional. How’s that for a visualization? Pretty neat, ah.

I agree general relativity is at a dead end when it comes to a theory that explains how the force of gravity is transferred. Perhaps it is time to shake it up and take a close look at the base fundamentals behind some current academic research. The challenge for fundamental analysis goes to the young up and coming academic researcher who is actively seeking solutions and innovation. If this is you then the principles of atomic gravity are your starting point! It may be your time to race past your peers with both prestige and setup a great career path. The principles of atomic gravity are tools used to advance academic research in the natural sciences. The principles describe the method to how the force of gravity is transferred in atomic structure. Understand the principles to understand the bigger picture.

The next step is easy. A summary of the principles can be found using Google. It is better to understand the principles now before spending too many years chasing ghosts like the many vested current academic pre-retirees and retirees whose past research centered on the fundamentals of gravity through the theory of general relativity.

New ideas are born and the old theories fade away demonstrating how the evolution of scientific knowledge has advanced through-out human endeavour. Take a step forward and get in the lead!

This is good ( where else will you find " Recall that structure occurs because fermions are like cuckoos, whereas bosons are like penguins. " ) But I couldn't real all of it as I had to give it back , and the library here is screwed now ~

Didn't read all of this as there's a NOVA documentary about it coming ~

( when back and read it, good to read right after Seife's book )

Part of the ' Brieft Insights ' guides. It was brief, if not all that insightful

Mostly pictures and history

Ein lesenswertes populärwissenschaftliches Büchlein über Vakuum und Vakua. Als kleine Kritik ließe sich anmerken, dass der größte Teil des Textes eine vorbereitende Darstellung von Relativitäts- und Quantentheorie ist und dass das eigentliche Thema im Vergleich dazu etwas kurz kommt.½

Initially engaging, this overview of particle physics tends towards the dry in later chapters, becoming little more than a catalogue of particles ever more indistinguishable before heading off into speculation accompanied by no thoughts on the possible ramifications of the answers to heady questions.

This exciting book is both a serious and lively adventure at the cutting edge of science, where the stakes are the extinction or survival of mankind.

Has trouble finding a balance between too technical for the layperson and too informal for the professional. Overall informative, if a bit dated, but becomes tedious reading.

How the neutrino was hypothesized, detected and utilized in astronomy and physics -- a story of the Twentieth Century.

A decent introduction to the concept of nothing. Is there nothing? Can there be nothing? Can something come from nothing? A quick tour through physics, geared at the layman but with perhaps a bit too much physics for a truly general audience, but even someone with no working knowledge of physics can probably understand the basics. My biggest complaint is the ending, where the author engages in a bit too much metaphysical speculating, rather than having a nice close out on a scientific note for scientific book. It's unclear what the author was attempting here, but it doesn't really work. Otherwise, a quick read for someone who wants to read about nothing.½

The bits of this I understood were interesting.

Part of the ' Brieft Insights ' guides. It was brief, if not all that insightful

Mostly pictures and history

Didn't read all of this as there's a NOVA documentary about it coming ~

( when back and read it, good to read right after Seife's book )