Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
Start by marking “Fields of Color: The theory that escaped Einstein” as Want to Read:
Blank 133x176
Fields of Color: The t...
Rodney A. Brooks
Rate this book
Clear rating
Open Preview

Fields of Color: The theory that escaped Einstein

3.99  ·  Rating Details ·  78 Ratings  ·  11 Reviews
"This book describes Quantum Field Theory for a lay audience, without equations. QFT is the only physics theory that makes sense and that dispels or resolves the paradoxes of relativity and quantum mechanics that have confused and mystified so many people." - Amazon
Paperback, 175 pages
Published December 15th 2010 by Rodney A. Brooks
More Details... edit details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Fields of Color, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about Fields of Color

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30)
filter  |  sort: default (?)  |  Rating Details
Jimmy Ele
Nov 05, 2016 Jimmy Ele rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: foundation
The simplest book that I have come across explaining Quantum Field Theory. My favorite parts were the appendixes in which the author explains how Quantum Field Theory automatically spews out the equations behind Einstein's big breakthroughs. The idea that all particles are not really particles but actually discrete fields that travel in field form yet can only be absorbed as one unit made so much sense in reconciling the seemingly dual particle wave nature of light and other phenomena. The main ...more
Jul 16, 2013 Asher rated it it was amazing
This wonderful book opened my eyes to an entirely new theory. The book introduced me to Quantum Field Theory. The name itself is intimidating, but the way the author explained the theory was very clear. The theory is that the universe is made of fields. To make things clearer, the author assigned a color to each field. Thus the title. There are five different fields: gravity, electromagnetic forces, the strong force, the weak force, matter. This theory is different from Quantum Mechanics in many ...more
Fr. Ted
Mar 19, 2014 Fr. Ted rated it it was ok
I appreciated the fact that Brooks avoided proving everything mathematically as the fact of the matter is the math is beyond my understanding anyway. But, and this is not the author's fault, despite what I think is my curiosity about physics, I often find the books somehow beyond my interest. I did not find myself thinking "but who cares? this is really only of interest to a few physicists". However, I also was not swept away by what Quantum Field Theory might represent - not being well versed i ...more
Ross Johnson
Dec 02, 2016 Ross Johnson rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
Well referenced wild ride

There are eye opening eureka moments in this book if you stick with it. I am not sure one comes away with the conclusion that the sources of reality have been finally described to the non-physicist. Rodney's passion is infectious if not all-pervasive and persuasive. My clearest thought is that gravity is not a dimple in space-time, but a field. That was worth the read.

Three weeks later, I am still thinking about this book. Consciousness is exceedingly hard to define but
Sep 14, 2016 Larry rated it really liked it
Not for everybody, but if you have some knowledge of physics, its history, its theories, and its notable characters, you should find it interesting.

For the past century, we have heard about 'a grand unification theory' of the universe to explain interactions between the smallest pieces of matter or the largest celestial bodies. This book presents an explanation I (as a layman with a university level physics & chemistry background) found to be quite plausible. I am still struggling with the n
Jun 13, 2016 Lisa rated it it was ok  ·  review of another edition
Not sure this is really for a lay reader but it was at a good level for a scientist who doesn't study physics. So now I want to read a more text book explanation of QFT however that is more due to the holes in the explanation here.
First, I think having field collapse in chapter 2 (especially not really explained) made me fight against buying the following explanations. Second, not explaining where the charges and spins of the fields come from seemed like a big hole. What do these mean how do th
May 31, 2014 Zach rated it really liked it
Great starter book for someone interested in learning more about: the fundamental physical forces, an intro into quantum and field theory, and the amazing history behind these developments. NO FORMAL MATH NEEDED! :-)

I am apprehensive to hastily take the author's view that QFT is the cure-all for physics as we know it, but intuitively it all follows all well and good.

Interestingly, even since first learning physics as an undergraduate, I have wondered if the consequences and paradoxes that perm
Hendrick Mcdonald
Aug 23, 2015 Hendrick Mcdonald rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
A Very a Good Intro to Quantum Field Theory

Easily laid out in small bit sized chunks, the book presents a very accessible introduction to quantum field theory. The author describes the fields role with history and backstory for each of the four forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong, weak) and the very helpful is the chapter on matter as its own fields. The appendixes on relativity though I felt were lacking.
Gene Solloway
Jun 10, 2016 Gene Solloway rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
History of physics interestingly told

I appreciate the author's clarity. Quantum field theory benefits in showing another view was fairly represented. Am I satisfied? Not yet. But I'm enjoying the quest! I recommend you read this if you ever pondered schrodinger's cat.
Sandra Mann
Jan 14, 2016 Sandra Mann rated it really liked it
The latest book in my quest to understand the workings of nature-Brooks presents quantum field theory for the layman and does a good job of it.
Gary rated it liked it
Jan 24, 2015
Mills College Library
530.143 B8736 2011
Matthew Harbowy
Matthew Harbowy rated it it was ok
Nov 18, 2015
Lloyd rated it it was amazing
Dec 03, 2016
charles pope
charles pope rated it it was amazing
Mar 10, 2016
James Dyson
James Dyson rated it it was amazing
Dec 23, 2016
Kay rated it really liked it
Jul 06, 2014
Rick Moldenhauer
Rick Moldenhauer rated it really liked it
Dec 28, 2015
Dave Vander
Dave Vander rated it really liked it
Sep 23, 2015
ashleigh rated it really liked it
Jan 29, 2016
theodore adler
theodore adler rated it it was amazing
Apr 12, 2016
Don Williams
Don Williams rated it it was ok
Nov 29, 2014
NEAL CALDWELL rated it really liked it
Mar 13, 2015
Technutz rated it really liked it
May 18, 2015
Carolyn Varner
Carolyn Varner rated it did not like it
Jan 13, 2015
Massimo Sommacampagna
Massimo Sommacampagna rated it it was amazing
May 19, 2016
Yoe Tha
Yoe Tha rated it it was amazing
Nov 30, 2014
Glenn Harris
Glenn Harris rated it it was amazing
Nov 22, 2016
Steve Bauer
Steve Bauer rated it it was amazing
Feb 23, 2015
Infinity rated it liked it
Jul 02, 2014
« previous 1 3 next »
There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »
Former director of the Artificial Intelligence Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and co-founder of iRobot.
More about Rodney A. Brooks...

Share This Book

“Whether it is a falling man or an orbiting satellite, the effect of inertia is to create an apparent upward force that depends on the mass of the object. It is the same force we feel when riding in a car that goes around a tight curve. This inertial effect is equal and opposite to gravity and therefore cancels the pull of gravity. In physicist language, the "gravitational mass" and "inertial mass" are equal. This is not a tautology, as Ambrose Bierce thought, but a recognition that the pull of gravity is proportional to the inertia of the object being pulled. Einstein called this the "Principle of Equivalence", and it became the basis for his new theory of gravity that he called the general theory of relativity.” 1 likes
“Relativistic twins? When one looks at the paths that Newton and Einstein followed while pursuing their theories of gravity, one is struck by the many similarities: the unexplained data on orbits, the sudden insight about falling objects, the need for a new mathematics, the calculational difficulties, the retroactive agreements, the controversy, the problem-plagued expeditions, and the final triumph and acclaim.. Both men had worked in the same eccentric and lonely way, divorced from other scientists, armed with a great feeling of self-reliance while struggling with new concepts and difficult mathematics, and both produced earth-shaking results. One can't help but wonder if these two greatest of scientists, born 237 years apart, were "relativistically related", conceived as twins in some ethereal plane in a far-off galaxy and sent to earth to solve a matter of some gravity.” 1 likes
More quotes…