What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces
Physicist' understanding of the essential nature of reality changed radically over the past quarter century. Frank Wilczek has played a lead role in establishing the new paradigms. Transcending the clash and mismatch of older ideas about what matter is, and what space is, Wilczek presents here some brilliant and clear syntheses. Space is a dynamic material, the engine of reality; matter is a subtle pattern of disturbance in that material. Extraordinarily readable and authoritative, The Lightness of Being is the first book to unwrap these exciting new ideas for the general public. It explores their implications for basic questions about space, mass, energy, and the longed-for possibility of a fully unified theory of Nature. Along the way, Wilczek presents new perspectives on many strange aspects of our fantastic universe. Pointing toward new directions where the great discoveries in fundamental physics are likely to come, he envisions a new Golden Age in physics.
292 pages, Hardcover
First published August 25, 2008
141 people are currently reading
2191 people want to read
About the author
Frank Wilczek
23 books235 followersFrank Anthony Wilczek, born May 15, 1951 is an American theoretical physicist, mathematician and a Nobel laureate. He is currently the Herman Feshbach Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Founding Director of T. D. Lee Institute and Chief Scientist at the Wilczek Quantum Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU), Distinguished Professor at Arizona State University (ASU) and full Professor at Stockholm University.
Wilczek, along with David Gross and H. David Politzer, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2004 "for the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction.
Wilczek, along with David Gross and H. David Politzer, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2004 "for the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 105 reviews
August 30, 2010
Absolutely terrific and definitely in my top three science favorites. Wilczek delves further into modern physics than any other "popular" physics book out there without tip-toeing around the more complicated topics.
He describes particle theory and the Standard Model better than Leon Lederman, relativity better than Brian Greene, gravity better than Stephen Hawking, and QCD better than... well, no one tries to explain QCD.
He did do a few things that bothered me a little though. On occasion, Wilczek was guilty of superfluous "simplification" of the conventions physicists use.
For example, he said that the color charges were red, white and blue (obviously a mnemonic device to evoke the ol' stars and stripes) when the actual color charges are red, green and blue. Substituting green for white didn't make it easier to explain or visualize since the color charges are simply an arbitrary naming convention.
He also bowed out of a fair treatment of the weak force, claiming it would be too big of a tangent from the task at hand. The appendix set aside specifically to assuage the more interested reader was a little disappointing too.
BUT! This was a spectacular book and I was sad to see the last page. Read it!
He describes particle theory and the Standard Model better than Leon Lederman, relativity better than Brian Greene, gravity better than Stephen Hawking, and QCD better than... well, no one tries to explain QCD.
He did do a few things that bothered me a little though. On occasion, Wilczek was guilty of superfluous "simplification" of the conventions physicists use.
For example, he said that the color charges were red, white and blue (obviously a mnemonic device to evoke the ol' stars and stripes) when the actual color charges are red, green and blue. Substituting green for white didn't make it easier to explain or visualize since the color charges are simply an arbitrary naming convention.
He also bowed out of a fair treatment of the weak force, claiming it would be too big of a tangent from the task at hand. The appendix set aside specifically to assuage the more interested reader was a little disappointing too.
BUT! This was a spectacular book and I was sad to see the last page. Read it!
September 10, 2014
This book is not my favorite type.It's about something that I am not interest in.The view is such rubbish.Though lots of professors write some good comment about,I don't liike it too.The comments about the book are so empty and white.It's not worth to get the nobel price in physics.What the hell!!
Physics is a dismal science. It does not have the authority of economics. I remember being told “what goes up must go down”. This, patently, is not true. Look at rockets.
Physics is a dismal science. It does not have the authority of economics. I remember being told “what goes up must go down”. This, patently, is not true. Look at rockets.
July 13, 2015
I need to start this review with two clarifications and a proviso. The first clarification is that this quite an old book (2008), but someone just brought it to my attention. The second clarification is about the book's title. It's not about 'The lightness of being Frank Wilczek', that's just an unfortunate choice of title. The proviso is about the four star rating. This, to me, is a very mixed book. It does two things brilliantly, and quite a lot of other things not very well. If you are interested in modern physics, particularly particle physics and quantum field theory, though, it is a must-read.
Let's get the brilliant things in first. One of the baffling things about physics when you get into quarks and gluons as the constituents of particles like protons and neutrons is that the strong force that holds them together appears to be almost non-existent when the are close, but grows to be extremely strong when they try to separate (and then pretty much disappears a little further apart). As a result of this we've never seen raw, naked quarks, even though the evidence for their existence is good.
The section of the book that covers the theoretical reasoning for the existence of quarks, the experimental evidence we have for them and how this strange topsy-turvey force works the way it does (and, by the way, gives protons and neutrons 95% of their mass - take that, Higgs!) is excellent. It's by far the best explanation I've ever seen. Not entirely surprising when you realise that Frank Wilczek won his Nobel Prize for 'the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction.' And asymptotic freedom is the rather clumsy name (Wilczek apologies for it in the book) for this odd way that the force increases as the quarks try to separate.
The other reason this book is excellent is that it gives a real insight into the kind of mental world modern theoretical physicists occupy. Once Wilczek gets going on what he calls 'the Grid' (because, he says, 'the Matrix' was spoiled as a name by the sequel movies), he is both dazzling and worrying. You might have thought that the ether went out with Maxwell and Einstein, but Wilczek shows how quantum field theorists postulate a whole multilayered collection of ethers filling space, from the assorted quantum fields to strange concepts of universe-filling condensates. I don't know if it's the impression he intended to give, but it really did come across to me as if modern theoretical physicists live in a fantasy world of mathematics which only occasionally touches base with reality when it happens to fit rather well with specific observations. The intention was, I think to show how this viewpoint is inevitable, but instead what comes across to me it that it feels like an abstraction with inevitable parallels with reality but that feels horribly like a house of cards.
Less effective are Wilczek's explanations once he gets away from quarks. I think I understand symmetry, at least to undergraduate physics level, but Wilczek's example that was supposed to show how symmetry worked for beginners totally lost me once he started talking about squeezing the sides of triangles. This, and much of the field theory explanations came across as someone who understood the topic so well that he didn't understand how to explain it to people who don't. It was more like a magician waving his hands at the end of a trick and saying 'So that's how it's done,' without revealing the actual mechanism.
Another slight problem was the writing style which tended to a kind of pompous joviality that I found rather wearing. Here's an example:
So: fully aware of the difficulties but undaunted, heroes of physics gird their loins, apply for grants, buy clusters of computers, solder, program, debug, even think - whatever it takes to wrest answers from the Grid pandemonium.
It's bearable, but hard work sometimes. So a definite recommendation, but with some significant reservations. You have been warned.
Let's get the brilliant things in first. One of the baffling things about physics when you get into quarks and gluons as the constituents of particles like protons and neutrons is that the strong force that holds them together appears to be almost non-existent when the are close, but grows to be extremely strong when they try to separate (and then pretty much disappears a little further apart). As a result of this we've never seen raw, naked quarks, even though the evidence for their existence is good.
The section of the book that covers the theoretical reasoning for the existence of quarks, the experimental evidence we have for them and how this strange topsy-turvey force works the way it does (and, by the way, gives protons and neutrons 95% of their mass - take that, Higgs!) is excellent. It's by far the best explanation I've ever seen. Not entirely surprising when you realise that Frank Wilczek won his Nobel Prize for 'the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction.' And asymptotic freedom is the rather clumsy name (Wilczek apologies for it in the book) for this odd way that the force increases as the quarks try to separate.
The other reason this book is excellent is that it gives a real insight into the kind of mental world modern theoretical physicists occupy. Once Wilczek gets going on what he calls 'the Grid' (because, he says, 'the Matrix' was spoiled as a name by the sequel movies), he is both dazzling and worrying. You might have thought that the ether went out with Maxwell and Einstein, but Wilczek shows how quantum field theorists postulate a whole multilayered collection of ethers filling space, from the assorted quantum fields to strange concepts of universe-filling condensates. I don't know if it's the impression he intended to give, but it really did come across to me as if modern theoretical physicists live in a fantasy world of mathematics which only occasionally touches base with reality when it happens to fit rather well with specific observations. The intention was, I think to show how this viewpoint is inevitable, but instead what comes across to me it that it feels like an abstraction with inevitable parallels with reality but that feels horribly like a house of cards.
Less effective are Wilczek's explanations once he gets away from quarks. I think I understand symmetry, at least to undergraduate physics level, but Wilczek's example that was supposed to show how symmetry worked for beginners totally lost me once he started talking about squeezing the sides of triangles. This, and much of the field theory explanations came across as someone who understood the topic so well that he didn't understand how to explain it to people who don't. It was more like a magician waving his hands at the end of a trick and saying 'So that's how it's done,' without revealing the actual mechanism.
Another slight problem was the writing style which tended to a kind of pompous joviality that I found rather wearing. Here's an example:
So: fully aware of the difficulties but undaunted, heroes of physics gird their loins, apply for grants, buy clusters of computers, solder, program, debug, even think - whatever it takes to wrest answers from the Grid pandemonium.
It's bearable, but hard work sometimes. So a definite recommendation, but with some significant reservations. You have been warned.
October 16, 2021
We live within a cosmic superconductor.
Frank Wilczek is a distinguished physicist, and his exceptionalism shines through the clairvoyance with which he explains some of our most profound models of reality. In this book, Wilczek offers the reader a clear explanation of the elegance and simplicity of the laws governing our reality and the universality of those laws. Wilczek makes strong assertions about the origin of mass, the nature of gravity, the unification of forces and symmetry.
This is the best pop physics book I have read. The Road to Reality is also excellent, but I haven't finished it yet, and it is more of a textbook than a pop physics book. I purchased a couple of proper physics and mathematics textbooks, but I keep coming back to the pop books because they are easier to read—shame on me.
Wilczek clears up a crucial misconception around quantum physics and randomness. He asserts that the random phenomena of quantum physics do not imply that anything goes and that we can't know anything about reality, as some new age "thinkers" like to tell us.
The probabilities of quantum physics follow strict rules that we can study with extreme precision. It is not probabilistic in the willy-nilly fashion that the general public is led to believe through poor popularisations of the topic. If quantum physics was simply "random stuff", then instead of spending billions of dollars building quantum computers, we would flip coins. Quantum physics obeys precise probabilistic laws.
Wilczek is a big proponent of symmetry as a guiding principle in physics. This may seem like prejudice but Wilczek defends it well. Symmetry has proven fruitful in helping us create theories that have strong predictive power. Special relativity is an example of a theory based on symmetry. Special relativity asserts that a physical system should behave the same if we transform all its entities by adding a common, constant "boost" to their velocities. If we had two worlds, and in one of them everything moves around faster by a constant velocity, then special relativity says that the same laws of physics apply in both worlds. This is similar to Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, in which he states that at the end of this eon, the universe will become "scaled-out" but from the perspective of the next eon, everything will feel normal. Take an image on your computer and scale it out horizontally and vertically by the same factor. It will still look like the same image... but bigger! This is a manifestation of symmetry.
One of my favourite fields of knowledge is the philosophy of science and so when Wilczek started talking about falsification I became very excited. I always thought that falsification was too impractical in some situations. For example, to test String Theory, we have to build a hadron collider that is infeasibly large. Why? It is because a string to a hydrogen atom is a tree to the observable universe. Strings are incredibly tiny. Karl Popper said that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be—in principle—falsifiable. This means that Popper required scientific theories to make predictions that can be tested and proven wrong. Such theories are treated as provisionally true until proven false. Wilczek pushes back a little and questions Popper. "Is Popper's claim true? Well, can you falsify it? Maybe it's a profound truth." Then he goes on to consider a more practical alternative to falsification, namely, "truthification"
David Deutsch, a philosopher of science who has built on top of the work of Popper, asserts that knowledge is made of good explanations. He defines good explanations as hard-to-vary assertions about reality. They are hard-to-vary because they provide specific details that fit together so tightly that changing them ruins the explanation. Wilzcek states the same point but slightly differently in his book. He says that "A theory begins to be perfect if any change makes it worse."
Why are there exactly 8 colour gluons and not 7? Why are there exactly 5 platonic solids and not 4? Might it be that they describe fundamental reality?
Wilczek fires some shots at Einstein's stubbornness (which some people have called his greatest strength).
If you go to this Wikipedia page quantum fluctuation, you will find a beautiful simulation of quantum field fluctuations. Reality at its deepest level is constantly fluctuating, with particles and antiparticles continually coming into existence and cancelling each other out. We do not have a satisfactory explanation for these fluctuations. However, we are nevertheless able to create highly precise and predictable theories while ignoring these fluctuations. We can have organisms with delicate biochemistry, computers with delicate hardware and other kinds of delicate processes that go on without being influenced by these fluctuations (as far as we know). These fluctuations are small in practice, but physicists are looking for evidence to ascribe macro phenomena to them, but that has not happened so far.
Just like most physicists, Wilzcek believes that there is much more to math than meets the eye:
A fun fact I came across in this book is that PET scans use positrons (antiparticles of electrons) which I thought was a pretty cool application of fundamental physics. Anyone who thinks fundamental physics is a waste of time ought to change their mind and immediately update their beliefs in light of this new evidence.
I didn't understand the crux of Wilczek’s theory but will get there someday. He says things like:
SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) → SU(3) × U(1)
Which make little sense to me but, I guess they are about groups and symmetries describing the Standard Model.
This is the sort of book I will reread several times, and on each rereading, I will gain a deeper grasp of its reality (and maybe even spot errors) as I continue to learn more advanced mathematics and physics.
Oh, also, Wilzcek thinks the universe is a superconductor.
Frank Wilczek is a distinguished physicist, and his exceptionalism shines through the clairvoyance with which he explains some of our most profound models of reality. In this book, Wilczek offers the reader a clear explanation of the elegance and simplicity of the laws governing our reality and the universality of those laws. Wilczek makes strong assertions about the origin of mass, the nature of gravity, the unification of forces and symmetry.
This is the best pop physics book I have read. The Road to Reality is also excellent, but I haven't finished it yet, and it is more of a textbook than a pop physics book. I purchased a couple of proper physics and mathematics textbooks, but I keep coming back to the pop books because they are easier to read—shame on me.
Wilczek clears up a crucial misconception around quantum physics and randomness. He asserts that the random phenomena of quantum physics do not imply that anything goes and that we can't know anything about reality, as some new age "thinkers" like to tell us.
Short-term unpredictability is, in the end, perfectly compatible with long-term precision.
The probabilities of quantum physics follow strict rules that we can study with extreme precision. It is not probabilistic in the willy-nilly fashion that the general public is led to believe through poor popularisations of the topic. If quantum physics was simply "random stuff", then instead of spending billions of dollars building quantum computers, we would flip coins. Quantum physics obeys precise probabilistic laws.
On the one hand, the interior of a proton is a dynamic place, with things changing and moving around. On the other hand, all protons everywhere and everywhen behave in exactly the same way... each proton gives the same probabilities!
Wilczek is a big proponent of symmetry as a guiding principle in physics. This may seem like prejudice but Wilczek defends it well. Symmetry has proven fruitful in helping us create theories that have strong predictive power. Special relativity is an example of a theory based on symmetry. Special relativity asserts that a physical system should behave the same if we transform all its entities by adding a common, constant "boost" to their velocities. If we had two worlds, and in one of them everything moves around faster by a constant velocity, then special relativity says that the same laws of physics apply in both worlds. This is similar to Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, in which he states that at the end of this eon, the universe will become "scaled-out" but from the perspective of the next eon, everything will feel normal. Take an image on your computer and scale it out horizontally and vertically by the same factor. It will still look like the same image... but bigger! This is a manifestation of symmetry.
One of my favourite fields of knowledge is the philosophy of science and so when Wilczek started talking about falsification I became very excited. I always thought that falsification was too impractical in some situations. For example, to test String Theory, we have to build a hadron collider that is infeasibly large. Why? It is because a string to a hydrogen atom is a tree to the observable universe. Strings are incredibly tiny. Karl Popper said that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be—in principle—falsifiable. This means that Popper required scientific theories to make predictions that can be tested and proven wrong. Such theories are treated as provisionally true until proven false. Wilczek pushes back a little and questions Popper. "Is Popper's claim true? Well, can you falsify it? Maybe it's a profound truth." Then he goes on to consider a more practical alternative to falsification, namely, "truthification"
Reppopism—the opposite of Popperism—says that the mark of a good scientific theory is that you can truthify it. A truthifiable theory might make mistakes, but if it's a good theory they're mistakes you can build on.
In a crucial way, falsifiability and truthifiability are two sides of the same coin. Both value definiteness. The worst kind of theory, on both accounts, is not a theory that makes mistakes. Mistakes, you can learn from. The worst kind of theory is a theory that doesn't even try to make mistakes—a theory that's equally ready for anything. If everything is equally possible, then nothing is especially interesting.
David Deutsch, a philosopher of science who has built on top of the work of Popper, asserts that knowledge is made of good explanations. He defines good explanations as hard-to-vary assertions about reality. They are hard-to-vary because they provide specific details that fit together so tightly that changing them ruins the explanation. Wilzcek states the same point but slightly differently in his book. He says that "A theory begins to be perfect if any change makes it worse."
Similarly, at first encounter people are sometimes put off by the superficial complexity of fundamental physics. Too many gluons!
But each of the eight colour gluons is there for a purpose. Together, they fulfil complete symmetry among the colour charges. Take one gluon away, or change its properties, and the structure would fall. Specifically, if you make such a change, then the theory formerly known as QCD begins to predict gibberish; some particles are produced with negative probabilities, and others with probability greater than 1. Such a perfectly rigid theory, one that doesn't allow consistent modification, is extremely vulnerable. If any of its predictions are wrong, there's nowhere to hide. No fudge factors or tweaks are available.
Why are there exactly 8 colour gluons and not 7? Why are there exactly 5 platonic solids and not 4? Might it be that they describe fundamental reality?
Wilczek fires some shots at Einstein's stubbornness (which some people have called his greatest strength).
Stubbornness kept him from participating in the tremendous successes of modern quantum theory after 1924, when uncertainty and indeterminism took root, and it kept him from accepting one of the most dramatic consequences of his own theory of general relativity, the existence of black holes.
If you go to this Wikipedia page quantum fluctuation, you will find a beautiful simulation of quantum field fluctuations. Reality at its deepest level is constantly fluctuating, with particles and antiparticles continually coming into existence and cancelling each other out. We do not have a satisfactory explanation for these fluctuations. However, we are nevertheless able to create highly precise and predictable theories while ignoring these fluctuations. We can have organisms with delicate biochemistry, computers with delicate hardware and other kinds of delicate processes that go on without being influenced by these fluctuations (as far as we know). These fluctuations are small in practice, but physicists are looking for evidence to ascribe macro phenomena to them, but that has not happened so far.
Just like most physicists, Wilzcek believes that there is much more to math than meets the eye:
One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, that we get more out of them than was originally put into them.
A fun fact I came across in this book is that PET scans use positrons (antiparticles of electrons) which I thought was a pretty cool application of fundamental physics. Anyone who thinks fundamental physics is a waste of time ought to change their mind and immediately update their beliefs in light of this new evidence.
I didn't understand the crux of Wilczek’s theory but will get there someday. He says things like:
SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) → SU(3) × U(1)
Which make little sense to me but, I guess they are about groups and symmetries describing the Standard Model.
This is the sort of book I will reread several times, and on each rereading, I will gain a deeper grasp of its reality (and maybe even spot errors) as I continue to learn more advanced mathematics and physics.
Oh, also, Wilzcek thinks the universe is a superconductor.
August 15, 2018
A beautifully written book about how the mass of composite particles like hadrons emerge by the compromise between gluon field disturbances and quantum mechanical uncertainty of quark localization along with the role played by the ever dynamic background vacuum. The famous Higgs mechanism which allows to reconcile the existence of certain kinds of masses is not the core subject of this book nor holds the major share for the mass of all objects although the spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking is touched upon in the author's way of portraying the cosmic vacuum background as superconducting grid making the gauge bosons for weak forces to acquire mass much like the photons subjected to superconductivity. It brings such rejoice to read books like this which reaches out to the core concepts of natural laws. It deserves a huge readership.
June 18, 2010
As an expert writing for laypersons, Frank does well. He includes humor and good metaphors to help the layperson understand a world beyond our perceptions and which stretches our understanding--for instance he makes 32 dimensions sound fairly reasonable and shows why Quantum Theory is so persuasive. However, he seems to think that saying when he'll tackle particularly thorny issues later in the book excuses him from connecting all the many and convoluted dots for his non-physicist readers (who seem to be his audience). It makes for some real hard slogs through some complicated physics where I don't feel I have nor have been given the background to get it all. Maybe by the end I'll have put the pieces together, and there are a lot of parts that are clear, but so far I'm really enjoying and really struggling with this fairly interesting book that basically tells us that energy equals mass--or 95% of it so far--and how mass comes from masslessness. Intriguing, no? Well, on to what accounts for that other 5%....
Actually I have that a little bit wrong. He accounted for 95% of the 5% of the mass in the universe. The rest consists of dark matter and energy--which doesn't mean it's dark but that its transparent.
In the end the book does catch the reader up on what's gone on in physics since quantum theory, Quantum Electro Dynamics, and the physics most people are popularly acquainted with happened towards the middle of last century. Really fascinating in parts, murky in others without some kind of primer book or, for me anyway, something that could bridge that large gap a little better (though I think some Feynman books he mentions in the end notes would help with that).
I have a lot of thoughts on this book, but they're fairly unorganized. The idea that theories need to be beautiful and elegant is very interesting but towards the end of the book I was wondering just how connected to reality these beautiful theories can be--though through much of the book the opposite problem occupies the author in fascinating ways.
This book has fueled interest in researching some more some of these fascinating ideas and topics in Guage Symmetry, Super symmetry, Quantum Chromodynamics and such.
It's a crazy universe we live in and an even crazier way we go about trying to make sense of it.
Actually I have that a little bit wrong. He accounted for 95% of the 5% of the mass in the universe. The rest consists of dark matter and energy--which doesn't mean it's dark but that its transparent.
In the end the book does catch the reader up on what's gone on in physics since quantum theory, Quantum Electro Dynamics, and the physics most people are popularly acquainted with happened towards the middle of last century. Really fascinating in parts, murky in others without some kind of primer book or, for me anyway, something that could bridge that large gap a little better (though I think some Feynman books he mentions in the end notes would help with that).
I have a lot of thoughts on this book, but they're fairly unorganized. The idea that theories need to be beautiful and elegant is very interesting but towards the end of the book I was wondering just how connected to reality these beautiful theories can be--though through much of the book the opposite problem occupies the author in fascinating ways.
This book has fueled interest in researching some more some of these fascinating ideas and topics in Guage Symmetry, Super symmetry, Quantum Chromodynamics and such.
It's a crazy universe we live in and an even crazier way we go about trying to make sense of it.
September 16, 2013
A strange sort of science book.
It has almost no appeal to non-scientifically minded people so I'm curious why Wilczek makes an attempt to limit the jargon and simplify his explanations to the point where they don't give the full picture. In the places where he does trust the reader and explain, it's not very good and overly complicated.
Thus we have the worst qualities of what is meant to be an informative book on his corner of science. The tone is also just bizarre and even sort of awkward.
The Lightness of Being, right after its grand conclusion, begins to explain the problems of the Standard model. The Appendicies that followed were actually quite good but the end notes were essentially citations or weary explanations that are of limited usefulness. All this just leads me to look elsewhere.
Wilczek's book functions better as a historical overview up until and at his moment of writing in High Energy Physics in 2010. It's almost 2014 as I write this review and even with the discovery of the Higgs Particle and significant other discoveries at the LHC this book has not aged well, even with Wilczek's attempts to anticipate.
All in all The Elegant Universe is a much better introduction to the idea (and allure) of unification of forces, and even its problems.
Subliminal by Leonard Mlodinow is a good book on neuroscience, not physics, that uses humor and references in a way that Wilczek so clearly misses in this book. They go from informative and light-hearted to bloated and distracting at the worst moments.
I read this book in its entirety because I respect a Nobel Prize winner such as Wilczek and I study physics closely. Although the book did pick itself up in its third act, it was just enough to not be a complete failure. There are perhaps 1/3 of the chapters that are worth reading in full because he repeats himself so much. He says that the book was assembled from disparate public lectures and it shows.
That's hardly commendable and not really worth your time compared to the great other number of quality science books available.
It has almost no appeal to non-scientifically minded people so I'm curious why Wilczek makes an attempt to limit the jargon and simplify his explanations to the point where they don't give the full picture. In the places where he does trust the reader and explain, it's not very good and overly complicated.
Thus we have the worst qualities of what is meant to be an informative book on his corner of science. The tone is also just bizarre and even sort of awkward.
The Lightness of Being, right after its grand conclusion, begins to explain the problems of the Standard model. The Appendicies that followed were actually quite good but the end notes were essentially citations or weary explanations that are of limited usefulness. All this just leads me to look elsewhere.
Wilczek's book functions better as a historical overview up until and at his moment of writing in High Energy Physics in 2010. It's almost 2014 as I write this review and even with the discovery of the Higgs Particle and significant other discoveries at the LHC this book has not aged well, even with Wilczek's attempts to anticipate.
All in all The Elegant Universe is a much better introduction to the idea (and allure) of unification of forces, and even its problems.
Subliminal by Leonard Mlodinow is a good book on neuroscience, not physics, that uses humor and references in a way that Wilczek so clearly misses in this book. They go from informative and light-hearted to bloated and distracting at the worst moments.
I read this book in its entirety because I respect a Nobel Prize winner such as Wilczek and I study physics closely. Although the book did pick itself up in its third act, it was just enough to not be a complete failure. There are perhaps 1/3 of the chapters that are worth reading in full because he repeats himself so much. He says that the book was assembled from disparate public lectures and it shows.
That's hardly commendable and not really worth your time compared to the great other number of quality science books available.
November 17, 2017
This book is from 2008 but it focuses on different aspects of particle physics than books that I've read so far. A few things I learned/ reviewed include:
1) energy is not conserved- as proved at CERN by creating more mass from smashing protons and neutrons together (Ch 3),
2) the interiors of protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons which we can't see directly (categorized by flavors/colors) (Ch 7),
3) a different description of the uncertainty principle than I've heard (Ch 7),
4) quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is the theory of strong interactions, a fundamental force describing the interactions between quarks and gluons, which make up hadrons such as the proton, neutron, and pion,
5) Hadrons are in two groups: baryons made of three quarks, and mesons made of one quark and one antiquark. (Protons and neutrons are baryons; pions are mesons),
6) "symmetry" is how physicists figured out/ explain the rules of quarks and gluons (Ch 7),
7) quarks that are close have almost no force attracting them, but there's a strong force that grows when they separate (?) (Ch 7),
8) the universe is made up of matter (4%), dark matter, and dark energy (Ch 8),
9) the "empty" part of space is not empty but an electromagnetic field/ time-space made up of hadrons which Wilczek calls "the grid" which is how gravity operates on a big scale (Ch 8.),
10) quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. It describes how light and matter interact (light gets heavy inside the 'grid") and is the first theory where there is agreement between quantum mechanics and special relativity
11) Quarks and gluons don't have mass? But they create the mass of the protons and neutrons with their energy?
I read the first half the book twice in a row. He lost me more and more in later chapters as he tried to point towards a possible future unified theory. I did not read the second half twice because I was mentally exhausted but I might have to just reread the second half of the book sometime to have it sink in.
Update: Now that I've let my brain rest awhile, I guess the issue here is that this was the physics landscape before superstring theory gained so much traction? I'm not sure which parts are no longer relevant- assuming superstring is even true- but it's still interesting to read such a different attempt at nearing a unified theory.
1) energy is not conserved- as proved at CERN by creating more mass from smashing protons and neutrons together (Ch 3),
2) the interiors of protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons which we can't see directly (categorized by flavors/colors) (Ch 7),
3) a different description of the uncertainty principle than I've heard (Ch 7),
4) quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is the theory of strong interactions, a fundamental force describing the interactions between quarks and gluons, which make up hadrons such as the proton, neutron, and pion,
5) Hadrons are in two groups: baryons made of three quarks, and mesons made of one quark and one antiquark. (Protons and neutrons are baryons; pions are mesons),
6) "symmetry" is how physicists figured out/ explain the rules of quarks and gluons (Ch 7),
7) quarks that are close have almost no force attracting them, but there's a strong force that grows when they separate (?) (Ch 7),
8) the universe is made up of matter (4%), dark matter, and dark energy (Ch 8),
9) the "empty" part of space is not empty but an electromagnetic field/ time-space made up of hadrons which Wilczek calls "the grid" which is how gravity operates on a big scale (Ch 8.),
10) quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. It describes how light and matter interact (light gets heavy inside the 'grid") and is the first theory where there is agreement between quantum mechanics and special relativity
11) Quarks and gluons don't have mass? But they create the mass of the protons and neutrons with their energy?
I read the first half the book twice in a row. He lost me more and more in later chapters as he tried to point towards a possible future unified theory. I did not read the second half twice because I was mentally exhausted but I might have to just reread the second half of the book sometime to have it sink in.
Update: Now that I've let my brain rest awhile, I guess the issue here is that this was the physics landscape before superstring theory gained so much traction? I'm not sure which parts are no longer relevant- assuming superstring is even true- but it's still interesting to read such a different attempt at nearing a unified theory.
July 20, 2025
I dove into this because I’ve been developing my knowledge of physics for a few years now, but almost exclusively at the scale of astrophysics and cosmology (see my review on the book Supermassive I read earlier this year). I wanted to foster my understanding of particle physics and the quantum theories as well, and this book was recommended as being a good way for a layman to get their feet wet with this subject matter. In that way, this book did not meet expectations.
This book is NOT for the layman. Granted, there may not exist a book suitable for the layman, because the quantum world is so much different from the world we live in. To meaningfully absorb the content of this book, you need to have had at least some exposure to physics at this scale, or do as I did, depend HEAVILY on Google and ChatGPT to help walk through some of the denser topics.
I was determined, though, to get through this and gain an appreciable understanding of this world for someone who doesn’t study it. In that respect, I gained a ton of new knowledge and a new perspective on the world around us.
Key takeaways for me from this book was gaining a better understanding of the interactions of particles like electrons do with photons, and quarks do with gluons, the discussion on what the author describes as The Grid (the rich ocean of activity we don’t see in an empty vacuum) and the current progress, and future research goals, of the unification of forces and supersymmetry.
I look forward to other similar readings, perhaps The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. And I welcome any feedback on other books I can consume at with my knowledge and experience.
This book is NOT for the layman. Granted, there may not exist a book suitable for the layman, because the quantum world is so much different from the world we live in. To meaningfully absorb the content of this book, you need to have had at least some exposure to physics at this scale, or do as I did, depend HEAVILY on Google and ChatGPT to help walk through some of the denser topics.
I was determined, though, to get through this and gain an appreciable understanding of this world for someone who doesn’t study it. In that respect, I gained a ton of new knowledge and a new perspective on the world around us.
Key takeaways for me from this book was gaining a better understanding of the interactions of particles like electrons do with photons, and quarks do with gluons, the discussion on what the author describes as The Grid (the rich ocean of activity we don’t see in an empty vacuum) and the current progress, and future research goals, of the unification of forces and supersymmetry.
I look forward to other similar readings, perhaps The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. And I welcome any feedback on other books I can consume at with my knowledge and experience.
July 15, 2017
It's written about LHC and CERN, quantum mechanics computer, quantum mechanics theory.
January 11, 2021
I loved this book, but I regret choosing the audio version. Next time I'll be reading with my eyes. Also, it was great to hear physics explained simply by a pioneering researcher from the field- this guy even named Axions.
October 24, 2020
Funny, witty and yet simple enough for the lay-person to understand. IMHO, this is one of the best works of physics writing I have come across so far!
July 20, 2025
I alternated between moderately liking this book and kind of despising it. Overall it presented good information on a lot of very complex new material in physics concerning the author’s specialty areas, however, often I felt as though his attempts at relatability to facilitate understanding just confused things. I didn’t particularly like his style of presentation which lacked organization. His writing kind of went in circles and then at the end you could stop and reorganize what he was saying yourself to make it coherent. Good info within but he could have used a better linguistic editor. Overall decent book but I feel like he was on the verge of making a spectacular book if he just took more time to organize his thoughts and his writing and to make the book a little longer with more detail.
April 25, 2011
One of the most important scientific stories of 2008 has been the calculation of the heavy particle masses ("hadrons") using some of the most elaborate computational methods yet. This has been yet another vindication of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), a strange theory that governs the interactions of particles that make up atomic nuclei. This theory is a cousin of electromagnetism, and like the theory of electromagnetism it is deceptively easy to formulate (at least with the aid of some higher mathematics), but the real-world predictions have been devilishly hard to extract. One of the earliest people to show that QCD does in fact correspond to physical reality was Frank Wilczek, who remarkably did this important work while still in his early twenties. Since then he has gone onto an illustrious career in theoretical Physics that culminated in his winning a Noble Prize for his work. To people in the Physics community he has been known for many years for his lucid expository articles, and we are all fortunate that he has written a book about some of the topics that he is the foremost authority on. The basic premise of this book, as suggested by the title itself, is that most of the stuff that we are surrounded with is in fact trapped energy. Wilckek turns the famous Einstein's equation E =m c^2 around, and in the form m = E/c^2 shows the rationale for why we can have mass as a form of energy. His writing is clear and accessible, and the book is not burdened with the technical details. Even so, many places could potentially be obscure to people who are not familiar with the basic ideas of modern Physics. Overall, however, this is one enjoyable and interesting book and a worthwhile read for anyone who is interested in the latest developments in advanced Physics.
November 29, 2014
Protože mě zajímá moderní fyzika v nezkresleném podání, velmi mě potěšila kniha The Lightness of Being. Česky vyšla jako Lehkost bytí a napsal ji nobelový fyzik Frank Wilczek, kterého mi nedávno doporučoval Petr Koubský v diskusi o Feynmanovi. Název odkazuje na Kunderu, ale text je vysoce technický a blízký jiným vědcům jako David Deutsch (Beginning of Infinity) či Stephen Hawking (Velkolepý plán). Wilczek píše především o podstatě hmoty a gravitace, přičemž čtenáře rozhodně nešetří detailů. Kniha je z roku 2008, tedy před spuštěním LHC, přesto se pouští do odvážných mentálních experimentů. Fantazie by prostě neměla dobrému vědci chybět a Wilczek jí má na rozdávání. Největší nastolenou otázkou je ta, kterou si klade i Deutsch, o možném sjednocení fyzikálních teorií v dohledné budoucnosti. Na jedné straně váží ohromující přesnost soudobých elementárních modelů, na straně druhé připomíná Feynmanův bonmot, že umět něco spočítat a chápat to je docela zásadní rozdíl. A nemusím snad ani dodávat, že Wilczek stejně jako všichni jeho současníci odmítá jakékoli mentální či mystické interpretace kvantové teorie. Předními světovými experty na eleMentální fyziku tak zůstávají Deepak Chopra a náš Jaroslav Dušek :-)
May 17, 2016
Space is not empty ( ).
( I T ) is in fact a very active medium.
We now know a bit (byte?) about the depths of Quantum reality and some thing of the profundities of Interstellar reaches.
With that in mind, I invite you to open this book, and try hard to follow this Nobel Prize winning Physicist as he explains what Mass and Ether are.
Follow him all the way to the edge of 2007 Physics (when we were still wondering if the Higgs Field was a thing) so that he can explain Super Symmetry and how it ties into unifying all of the known forces.
SPOILER ALERT
Those four forces only account for about 5% of the known universe. The other 95% of the universe is said to be made up of Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
Overall, this was a very entertaining read. Highly recommended, and an instant uber favorite. This book has led me to want to study Quantum Electrodynamics as well as Quantum Chromodynamics. I have quoted extensively from this book and so have left this review short.
( I T ) is in fact a very active medium.
We now know a bit (byte?) about the depths of Quantum reality and some thing of the profundities of Interstellar reaches.
With that in mind, I invite you to open this book, and try hard to follow this Nobel Prize winning Physicist as he explains what Mass and Ether are.
Follow him all the way to the edge of 2007 Physics (when we were still wondering if the Higgs Field was a thing) so that he can explain Super Symmetry and how it ties into unifying all of the known forces.
SPOILER ALERT
Those four forces only account for about 5% of the known universe. The other 95% of the universe is said to be made up of Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
Overall, this was a very entertaining read. Highly recommended, and an instant uber favorite. This book has led me to want to study Quantum Electrodynamics as well as Quantum Chromodynamics. I have quoted extensively from this book and so have left this review short.
October 29, 2008
The Lightness of Being, by Frank Wilczek. Basic Books, 2008. Note: I am also posting (probably several times) about this book and others like it on Gyre&Gimble.
This book is an exposition for the layman of the modern theory of particle physics – the Standard Model, Supersymmetry and other possible extensions. I recommend it for anyone interested in the subject.
This book and Symmetry and the Monster are examples of the modern trend in science expository writing, using metaphors, anecdotes, graphs and speculation to try to communicate an understanding of how the scientists involved think about the subject and what their motivations are. Wilczek uses much the same approach that I have been using in abstractmath.org and it has made me think about what works and what doesn’t.
This book is an exposition for the layman of the modern theory of particle physics – the Standard Model, Supersymmetry and other possible extensions. I recommend it for anyone interested in the subject.
This book and Symmetry and the Monster are examples of the modern trend in science expository writing, using metaphors, anecdotes, graphs and speculation to try to communicate an understanding of how the scientists involved think about the subject and what their motivations are. Wilczek uses much the same approach that I have been using in abstractmath.org and it has made me think about what works and what doesn’t.
November 21, 2015
Frank Wilczek tries to explain why things have mass, and why gravity is so phenomenally weak.
I think this is the first popular physics book I've read that focused explicitly on quantum chromodynamics; many others mention that there is such a thing as colour charge, but neglect to go into where it came from. Wilczek manages to explain why it exists and what it means on a very visceral level, doing for QCD what Feynman did for QED, only more successfully.
Like most popular science writers, he's averse to mentioning formulae more complex than Einstein's mass-velocity relationship one¹, but on the whole, he doesn't treat his readers like idiots. The Lightness of Being isn't perfect, but it's certainly a book that deserves more exposure.
---
¹
I think this is the first popular physics book I've read that focused explicitly on quantum chromodynamics; many others mention that there is such a thing as colour charge, but neglect to go into where it came from. Wilczek manages to explain why it exists and what it means on a very visceral level, doing for QCD what Feynman did for QED, only more successfully.
Like most popular science writers, he's averse to mentioning formulae more complex than Einstein's mass-velocity relationship one¹, but on the whole, he doesn't treat his readers like idiots. The Lightness of Being isn't perfect, but it's certainly a book that deserves more exposure.
---
¹
May 24, 2014
A must read for anyone intrigued by the ultimate make up and signifcance of all that is real. I finished reading this on July 4, 2012 as the probable verification of the existence of the Higgs Bosom (the "God" particle [originally the "god dammed particle"]) was being announced. In many ways, the entire book looked forward to this day. This is only the beginning.
The work consists of three parts, "The Origin of Mass", "The Feebleness of Gravity", and "Is Beauty Truth?".
Wilczek, a winner of the Nobel in Physics, breaks down and presents complex, difficult, concepts without watering them down. I had to struggle and often went back and re-read and re-read. Watson has supplied an excellent glossary, to which one will constantly want to refer to reinforce what has been learned. Endnotes at the end develop concepts, and suggest references for further study. There are three appendicies.
A web page << frankwilczek.com >> has additional pictures, links, and news related to the book.
The work consists of three parts, "The Origin of Mass", "The Feebleness of Gravity", and "Is Beauty Truth?".
Wilczek, a winner of the Nobel in Physics, breaks down and presents complex, difficult, concepts without watering them down. I had to struggle and often went back and re-read and re-read. Watson has supplied an excellent glossary, to which one will constantly want to refer to reinforce what has been learned. Endnotes at the end develop concepts, and suggest references for further study. There are three appendicies.
A web page << frankwilczek.com >> has additional pictures, links, and news related to the book.
February 2, 2011
Disclaimer: I love theoretical physics and I was an undergrad physics major. That being said, I loved this book. Wilczek does a wonderful job of explaining a very complex topic- physics almost exclusively explored by PhD's in Physics or those pursuing PhD's. His genius is evident in his work and his ability to explain his studies clearly. While there are many topics Wilczek discussed that I do not understand fully (and probably couldn't without seeing the mathematics involved), I feel I have a much deeper understanding of current particle physics, the purpose for the LHC, and particle physics' connection to the unified theory, dark matter, and dark energy (as well as what mysteries still remain).
If you're looking for a science book, I would recommend this over Stephen Hawkings recent book.
If you're looking for a science book, I would recommend this over Stephen Hawkings recent book.
November 28, 2011
Although written in a "clear and concise" manner it still didn't make much sense to me.Its probably fine if your IQ is 150+ but to my average IQ it was, in a sense, easy to read but hard to understand.It did enlighten me on a few subjects and it did get me to understand that some particles get their mass through field disturbance,but Frank Wilczek is certainly no Brian Greene or Paul Davies as far as his abilities to elucidate through analogy go.
September 12, 2014
It has always upset me that I was not able to become a poet. I have the hair, the looks and the personality, but it never worked out for me. This book certainly wasn’t written by a poet. Instead, it was written by a hater; a man who only has hate in his life. I guess you can see that in the choice of colour for the book cover. It’s dark, just like the author’s sole.When the author is a childern His mother was died.He was born in an unhappy family His
December 29, 2008
This book is awesome! Wilczek has a great, understandable way of explaining recent advances toward unification. Fabulous read for the armchair theoretical physicist.
April 8, 2011
If I had to describe this book in one sentence it would be: Wilczek does for QCD what Feynman did for QED. A very pleasant and interesting read.
September 12, 2014
This book reminds me of my first day at school. On my first day at school I met Vix. Vix was and still is everything I want in my life. There was something about her
April 2, 2018
Ho scoperto un sacco di cose. Non ho capito un sacco di cose.
January 3, 2015
A fun diversion into particle physics and where we are in our search for the theory of everything.
October 28, 2015
!!!!!!! <3<3<3<3 FANTASTISK
November 11, 2025
I've probably read N (where N is a large integer) number of books on quantum mechanics/dynamics, relativity, field theory, particle physics, and cosmology. They all seem to have a common goal of making these very non-intuitive topics understandable without a ton of graduate level mathematics. My general experience is they don't really succeed on 80% of the topics they cover, but there are usually a few areas where their narrative or choice of analogies click, and you walk away with a few more nuggets that add to your core understanding. For me anyway, this was true here as well with Wilczek's book on QCD (Quantum ChromoDynamics).
So a pretty good job explaining the origin of mass, and the relative strength of gravity. On the down side, his unfortunate attempts at explaining both the Standard Model and Unification are a complete hash. The book was published in 2008, so it doesn't include any of the findings from the LHC (no Higgs particle yet).
[What follows below isn't so much a review as just some notes to help me remember.]
How do neutrons and protons get their mass?
Wilczek does a good job on this topic. I finally have a better understanding of how three quarks (with very low mass) end up making a hadron with 100x of the quark mass (energy) . The hadron mass is a compromise between gluon field energy and quark localization energy.
The color charge on the quarks create a disturbance in the gluon field. This disturbance grows with distance (the lowest energy would be with the quarks superimposed on each other). However, the uncertainty principle tells us that the more you constrain position, the higher the momentum, so the net lowest energy is where the energy of the gluon field balances the momentum energy of the quarks. This 'binding' energy accounts for about 99% of the total energy of the neutron/proton.
Also, because the disturbance in the gluon field grows slowly, hadrons don't need to be all that compact, and the quantum uncertainty energy doesn't need to be all that high. As a result, hadrons are pretty light, and have only a miniscule effect on space-time curvature. This is why we see gravity as feeble.
Unfortunately, the part I still don't really understand is how asymptotic freedom works. Why does the disturbance in the gluon field caused by the quark's color charge grow with distance? This was the topic Wilczek won the Nobel Prize for, but all I got from his explanation was that there was some 'anti-screening' from the virtual particle field. I guess that will have to be a topic for another book.
Why is Newton's gravitation force proportional to the body's mass? (This is pretty neat).
"And [this] is what's observed: motion independent of mass. The observed behavior is universal: all bodies accelerate in the same way under gravity. But in Newton's account there's no reason why it had to occur. It's another of those things that works in practice but not in theory. The gravitational force on a body didn't have to be proportional to the body's mass. We certainly know of forces, such as electric forces, that aren't proportional to mass.
Einstein's theory explains the gravitational "coincidence." Or rather, transcends it: we don't have to speak separately about a force and a response to force, that happen to depend on mass in opposite ways. We just have bodies doing their best to keep going straight through curved space-time. This is profound simplicity at its best."
So a pretty good job explaining the origin of mass, and the relative strength of gravity. On the down side, his unfortunate attempts at explaining both the Standard Model and Unification are a complete hash. The book was published in 2008, so it doesn't include any of the findings from the LHC (no Higgs particle yet).
[What follows below isn't so much a review as just some notes to help me remember.]
How do neutrons and protons get their mass?
Wilczek does a good job on this topic. I finally have a better understanding of how three quarks (with very low mass) end up making a hadron with 100x of the quark mass (energy) . The hadron mass is a compromise between gluon field energy and quark localization energy.
The color charge on the quarks create a disturbance in the gluon field. This disturbance grows with distance (the lowest energy would be with the quarks superimposed on each other). However, the uncertainty principle tells us that the more you constrain position, the higher the momentum, so the net lowest energy is where the energy of the gluon field balances the momentum energy of the quarks. This 'binding' energy accounts for about 99% of the total energy of the neutron/proton.
Also, because the disturbance in the gluon field grows slowly, hadrons don't need to be all that compact, and the quantum uncertainty energy doesn't need to be all that high. As a result, hadrons are pretty light, and have only a miniscule effect on space-time curvature. This is why we see gravity as feeble.
Unfortunately, the part I still don't really understand is how asymptotic freedom works. Why does the disturbance in the gluon field caused by the quark's color charge grow with distance? This was the topic Wilczek won the Nobel Prize for, but all I got from his explanation was that there was some 'anti-screening' from the virtual particle field. I guess that will have to be a topic for another book.
Why is Newton's gravitation force proportional to the body's mass? (This is pretty neat).
"And [this] is what's observed: motion independent of mass. The observed behavior is universal: all bodies accelerate in the same way under gravity. But in Newton's account there's no reason why it had to occur. It's another of those things that works in practice but not in theory. The gravitational force on a body didn't have to be proportional to the body's mass. We certainly know of forces, such as electric forces, that aren't proportional to mass.
Einstein's theory explains the gravitational "coincidence." Or rather, transcends it: we don't have to speak separately about a force and a response to force, that happen to depend on mass in opposite ways. We just have bodies doing their best to keep going straight through curved space-time. This is profound simplicity at its best."
January 30, 2019
There was nothing “wrong” with this book, and if I didn’t know anything about the topic or hadn’t read better books, like The Elegant Universe, I might have been intrigued. But as it is, and as I am, I found this book lacking something—maybe in originality, maybe in storytelling that provides an engaging perspective. It was more like a book written by one physics nerd for other physics nerds, complete with the occasional corny joke thrown in for giggles. Still, I picked up at least three nuggets worth contemplation:
1. (per Niels Bohr) An ordinary truth is a statement whose opposite is a falsehood. A profound truth is a statement whose opposite is also a profound truth. In that spirit, we might say that an ordinary mistake is one that leads to a dead end, while a profound mistake is one that leads to progress. Anyone can make an ordinary mistake, but it takes a genius to make a profound mistake.
2. We've all heard about something that works in theory, but not in practice. However, some things work in practice, but what about in theory? If it doesn't work in theory, then you don't understand it.
3. (per Augustine) The past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist. There is only the present. The past has a sort of existence in present minds as memory, as does the future as present expectations. Thus, the existence of a past depends on the existence of minds, and there can be no “before” in the absence of minds. Before minds were created, there was no “before”.
1. (per Niels Bohr) An ordinary truth is a statement whose opposite is a falsehood. A profound truth is a statement whose opposite is also a profound truth. In that spirit, we might say that an ordinary mistake is one that leads to a dead end, while a profound mistake is one that leads to progress. Anyone can make an ordinary mistake, but it takes a genius to make a profound mistake.
2. We've all heard about something that works in theory, but not in practice. However, some things work in practice, but what about in theory? If it doesn't work in theory, then you don't understand it.
3. (per Augustine) The past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist. There is only the present. The past has a sort of existence in present minds as memory, as does the future as present expectations. Thus, the existence of a past depends on the existence of minds, and there can be no “before” in the absence of minds. Before minds were created, there was no “before”.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 105 reviews