My reactions to reading this in 1994.

An interesting book that not only does a pretty good job of explaining particle physics and the history of the various theories but also the relationship between mathematics and theory. (I have a a hard time understanding particle physics on even a watered-down, popular level) .

Lindley points out that modern theoretical particle physics is driven by the desire to find a mathematically elegant theory, that circular reasoning has resulted as mathematicians propose ideas for physicists. Physicists, in turn, reject or accept ideas based on their mathematical elegance. All this goes on with increasingly less experimental verification of theories if for no other reason than that the realm explored by particle physicists has become more expensive and difficult to explore and that some questions – like why does the universe have to possess symmetrical, beautiful mathematic elegance? -- don’t lend themselves to verification or experiment.

On the other hand, as Lindley points out, holding on to elegant theory in spite of experimental evidence to the contrary is sometimes justified. He points out that, at first, Copernican astronomical theory didn’t match experimental observations as well as Ptolemaic astronomy did. However, some scientists kept messing around with it due to its elegance and simplicity – its mathematical beauty – and Kepler’s refinements finally produced a theory that matched observation. So there is historical justification for scientists clinging to a theory despite the evidence, but, as Lindley points out, this can go too far. The tension between the predominance of theory and observation is a central one to physics. ( )

Lindley's book serves as a good introduction to the state of play in modern physics. He takes great care not to baffle his readers, and makes the science he discusses very accessible. In all, this is a good history of science that is both enlightening and entertaining. ( )