Klicka på en bild för att gå till Google Book Search.
Laddar... Newton's Principia for the Common Readerav S. Chandrasekhar
Ingen/inga Laddar...
Gå med i LibraryThing för att få reda på om du skulle tycka om den här boken. Det finns inga diskussioner på LibraryThing om den här boken. inga recensioner | lägg till en recension
"Representing a decade's work from a distinguished physicist, this is the first comprehensive analysis of Newton's Principia without recourse to secondary sources. Professor Chandrasekhar analyses some 150 propositions which form a direct chain leading to Newton's formulation of his universal law of gravitation. In each case, Newton's proofs are arranged in a linear sequence of equations and arguments, avoiding the need to unravel the necessarily convoluted style of Newton's connected prose. In almost every case, a modern version of the proofs is given to bring into sharp focus the beauty, clarity, and breathtaking economy of Newton's methods." "Professor Chandrasekhar's work is an attempt by a distinguished practising scientist to read and comprehend the enormous intellectual achievement of the Principia. This work will stimulate great interest and debate among the scientific community, illuminating the brilliance of Newton's work under the gaze of Chandrasekhar's rare perception."--Jacket. Inga biblioteksbeskrivningar kunde hittas. |
Pågående diskussionerIngen/ingaPopulära omslag
Google Books — Laddar... GenrerMelvil Decimal System (DDC)531Natural sciences and mathematics Physics MechanicsKlassifikation enligt LCBetygMedelbetyg:
Är det här du? |
Think of Darwin for instance: since his time, biology has become almost as mathematical as physics, which incidentally gives the lie to a remark once made by Kant (*) that 'there will never be a Newton of the grass blade.' In all probability, Darwin would not be able to understand many mathematical biology books written in the last 50 years, whereas i suspect that Newton, with some effort and a few rapid shifts in certain aspects of his world view, would probably be able to cope with everything in physics up to the early 1900's, before slowing down to digest relativity and quantum theory. Only slowing down though, and that mostly to learn the relevant 18th, 19th and 20th Century maths that postdated him:)
This then, or so it seems, is the peculiar difficulty with mathematics: I know nothing technical about music whatsoever, but I can appreciate the glory that is, for example, Bach without knowing how to read a note of music. But to appreciate calculus, and all that flows from it (**), I must learn calculus, and other mathematics besides. Which, I am always being told, is beyond most people apparently. I still think that people should make more of an effort though. If I can read, for instance, Milton's “Paradise Lost” (several times over the years), then the arts mob can be expected to cope with C. P. Snow, or Koestler's “The Sleepwalkers” can't they?
NB:
(*) Though i certainly think that the Critique of Pure Reason should be on the list somewhere.
(**) Rutherford, the discoverer of the structure of the atom, was fond of saying that 'there are two kinds of science: physics and stamp-collecting', but he was put in his place by the world's then leading mathematician, David Hilbert, who, on hearing of this, replied: 'physics is too difficult to leave to physicists; it can only be done properly by mathematicians.' ( )