出版日期：2013年3月 出版社：中国科学技术大学出版社 正文页码：468页（16开） 字数：630千 定价：90.00元 编辑邮箱： jhduster@ustc.edu.cn （欢迎来索要目录、样章的PDF） 出版社官方淘宝店： http://shop109383220.taobao.com 原著信息 书名：Cosmology 原作者：Steven Weinberg 原出版社：牛津大学出版社，2008年 【 内容简介 】 本书介绍了当代宇宙学研究的模型和用到的公式，内容详尽，论述严谨。全书分为两部分，每一部分均可作为一个学期研究生课程的教材。第一部分讲述宇宙学的各向同性和均匀性，第二部分则介绍了对各向同性和均匀性的偏离。本书详细推导了各宇宙学现象的详细解析解，而不是简单罗列数值计算的结果。本书包括了宇宙学的最新进展，对复合、微波背景辐射的极化、轻子合成、引力透镜、结构形成、多场暴胀等专题做了详尽的讲解。本书还引证了大量当前的研究工作，附录部分简要介绍了广义相对论，详细推导了宇宙学演化中用于描述光子和中微子的相对论性波尔兹曼方程，书末附有习题集。 本书可作为理论物理、天体物理高年级本科生、研究生教材，也可供从事宇宙学、天体物理和理论物理研究的科研工作者阅读。 【译者简介】 向守平， 1945 年生，北京大学本科，中国科学技术大学研究生。中国科学技术大学天文学系教授，国家级教学名师。曾出版译著《引力与时空》以及《天体物理概论》《宇宙大尺度结构的形成》等著作，深受学生和读者欢迎。 【作者简介】 Steven Weinberg, 得克萨斯大学 Josey Regental 科学教授 ,1979 年诺贝尔物理学奖得主。笔耕不辍，所著《引力和宇宙学》（ Gravitation and cosmology ）和三卷本的《量子场论》（ The Quantum Theory o Field ）为经典著作。他为一般读者写的书有《最初三分钟》（ The First Three Minutes ，已译成 23 种文字）、《基本粒子与物理学定律》（ Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics, 与费曼合著）、《终极理论之梦》（ Dreams of a Final Theory ），以及文集《仰望苍穹：科学和它的文化对手》（ Factring UP: Science and its Culmral Adversaries ）等。最近又出版了新作《量子力学讲义》（ Lectures on quantum mechanics ）。
Nowadays, in many research areas, even including most practical disciplines, such as electrical and electronic engineering, communication, signal processing, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, etc., the gap between theory and practice is only becoming wider and wider. Probably this is one of the reasons why Gerald Weinberg introduces this Weinberg Test, which would filter out most of the research outputs in the practical disciplines mentioned above, not to mention those of the not-so-practical research areas. After reading this short description, we should ask ourselves: can our research pass the Weinberg Test? The Weinberg Test by Gerald M. Weinberg: While attending a computer conference in Davos, I found myself listening to a panel of three professors who debated the subject of computer science education. After describing their three different approaches to curricula, the panelists solicited questions from the floor. Someone asked, "How do you measure the effectiveness of your curricula?" Instead of a reply, there was much clearing of throats, hemming, mumbling, and hawing. The audience stirred in their seats and hooted remarks concerning the usefulness of colleges and the mental capacity of the professors. Finally, one of the panelists challenged the audience to propose their own measurements. When nobody else seemed willing to take the risk, I accepted the challenge." Imagine," I said, "that this conference is finished and you have taken the train to Zurich to fly home. You have boarded your flight and the doors have been locked when you hear the following announcement blare over the loudspeaker in an artificial voice: Fellow passengers: Today, you are participating in a historic event, the first fully automated commercial flight. From this moment on, until you arrive at the gate at your destination, this plane is under the complete control of a microcomputer. There is no human pilot or co-pilot, but you need not be concerned for your safety. The program that controls the plane was accepted as a thesis project for a doctorate in computer science at X University. Bon voyage! " The true test of your curriculum," I continued, "is how you feel at that moment." Apparently, the professors on the panel didn't think my test was helpful, but the audience broke into uncontrollable giggles. The moderator tried to restore order, but the audience seemed to have lost interest in what the panelists had to say, once the panel had labeled my test as ridiculous. I, myself, was feeling rather downhearted, for I had intended the test as a serious standard, the most serious standard I could imagine. As the room cleared, I was approached by a short, white-haired man, sporting a goatee and wearing a three-piece gray suit. He addressed me in English with a German accent: "Professor Weinberg, I liked your test. Unlike the panel members, I believe it to be a serious test, and I wanted to tell you that it correctly measures my own curriculum." I was delighted to have someone take me seriously, so I asked, "And how would you feel when you heard the announcement?" His reply surprised me. "Oh, I wouldn't be worried at all. I would he completely confident of my safety." "Really? Is your program that good?" "Not at all," he answered, a twinkle in his eye. "But if one of our students wrote the system, it wouldn't even start the engines!" Over the years, whenever anyone asks me how to measure risk, I've recalled the goateed professor. Although there are many tests one might apply, The Weinberg Test seems to occupy a fundamental place in the hierarchy of all possible tests. In brief, The Weinberg Test asks,Would you place your own life in the hands of this system? Not all systems need such a severe test, so I have constructed weaker versions of The Weinberg Test, such as, Would you risk your right arm? Would you risk your left hand? Would you risk your life's savings? Would you risk a month's salary? Would you risk 10 dollar of your own money? I've used the 10 dollar test several hundred times with computer programmers who assert that their program is now bug-free. Ninety-five times out of a hundred, the programmer backs down and refuses to wager 10 dollar that I can't find a bug in a reasonable amount of time. The other five times out of a hundred, I win 10 dollar. It's not hard to be confident with other people's money. The essential element of The Weinberg Test is the requirement that the claimant risk something personal, rather than simply blabber some empty abstractions. As consultants, we're trying to apply Ford's Fundamental Feedback Formula to ourselves, at least conceptually. In street language, The Weinberg Test is called "putting your money where your mouth is." When we consultants propose changes, the first thing we should do is decide what level of Weinberg Test we're designing for, then put our own feelings on the line. If human lives are at stake, then our own feeling of safety is the minimum goal. If money is at stake, then we have to personalize that money on a scale we'd feel if it were our own money. In the engineering disciplines, it took many deaths to provide the motivation for improving the state of the art. Ships sank, bridges collapsed, buildings burnt, airplanes crashed, steam engines exploded. How many human lives will we have to sacrifice before consultants learn how to do it right the first time? I hope we won't have to sacrifice any. But what about other sacrifices—of time, of money, of human comfort? When life or death is not directly involved, we haven't done so well at personalizing the outcome. Perhaps The Weinberg Test could save more than lives. Perhaps it could save our jobs, our reputations, and even our self-respect.
想成为传奇么？起名“斯蒂芬”吧。 为什么？看看这些叫斯蒂芬的纯爷们吧 :D 1 、世界上市值最高、产品风靡全球、某某青年卖肾换玩具的是哪个公司？苹果公司。创始人是谁？ ( 当然是之一 ) 把苹果公司推到巅峰的又是谁？乔帮主啊。乔帮主全明是啥？ Steven Paul Jobs 2 、他被誉为爱因斯坦之后世界上最杰出的物理学家，一生与“黑洞”结下不解之缘，同时对大统一理论很有兴趣。然而，他又是一个十足的“赌徒”，对学术豪赌乐此不疲。他是“身残志坚”的代表，传说曾经还能依靠三只手指传递信息，如今只能通过眼皮眨动交流。最有名的科普著作《时间简史》、《果壳中的宇宙》。最拉风的还是能让不屑任何人的 Sheldon Copper 同学乖乖地站在边上听到批评自己的论文中有错误。 没有第二个， Stephen William Hawking 3 、同样是当今最伟大的理论物理学家，他统一了电磁力和弱相互作用力，为大统一理论进一步发展奠定了基础，并因此与另外两位物理学家分享了 1979 年的物理学炸药奖。科普著作《最初三分钟》的热卖也使其在普通读者心中有着相当的地位。他是“还原论”的忠实支持者，对大统一理论的贡献正是佐证。（虽然本人更喜欢 Anderson 的那句 More is different ） 4 、地球上最好的篮球控球后卫是谁？冷静的头脑、敏锐的洞察力、神鬼莫测的传球……那份优雅和飘逸足以令全世界球迷为之着迷。在长人林立、崇尚暴力美学的 NBA 里，他是一个另类，另一种风格。他， Stephen John Nash 。 当然，还有太多的“斯蒂芬”们的，比如斯蒂芬·斯皮尔伯格、斯蒂芬·杰拉德等等 “成功学”泛滥的时代，各种补习班透支着家长们口袋里的银子、挤压着孩子玩耍的时间。家长们唯一的目的就是“不能让孩子输在起跑线上”。其实还有更为“省钱省力又省心”的办法——想成功么？给孩子起名“斯蒂芬”吧 参考： http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Nash
标签: 温伯格
