Skip to main content

Who will buy? Quantum physics for the wealthy

I've just received my copy of Compendium of Quantum Physics, a hefty book of short articles on all sorts of aspects of quantum physics. I was sent a copy because I have a small contribution - the closest I'll ever come to having my name on an academic paper - as co-author with Professor Guenter Nimtz of the article on quantum mechanical tunneling. (If I'm honest, Prof. Nimtz wrote it, I just edited it and tweaked it a bit.)

But what I really wonder is who is going to buy this book. At Amazon.co.uk it is just under £130, while at Amazon.com you can snap it up at a bargain $157.99.

This is clearly not a popular science book. I'd say from the content that you would have to be an undergraduate physics student to get something out of it, but I can't imagine any students buying it.

I guess it's just going to be libraries, which is a shame in a way, because for the right audience (science writers, for instance) this is going to be a really useful resource - but I just can't see many people buying it at this price.
Labels:

Comments

  1. laurasdad27 October 2009 at 22:34

    Books like this may well only be bought by libraries which is why the price is so high; the economics are really wrong though because I'm sure with a little thought and some creativity the price point could be reduced by 90% so benefiting a lot more people (students as well).

    Apropos the same theme there is a good discussion on LT about what e books will do to libraries and their costs. http://www.librarything.com/thingology/2009/10/ebook-economics-are-libraries-screwed.php

    I recall you being very enthusiastic about your e book reader; does the argument hold water for you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg28 October 2009 at 15:20

    I'm not sure about this. Perhaps we'll see something similar to the special rental versions of movies, where libraries will get a special version early at an extra cost. I'm not convinced libraries are a significant enough market to drive up prices of ebooks for anything outside the academic market.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more