Scan barcode
bupdaddy's review against another edition
2.0
I really looked forward to reading this, and I was really disappointed.
First of all, it's a very short 180 pages. Each new chapter gets a title on one page, then a blank page, then the chapter starts. There are several full page pictures with the backs blank. Even the number of words on a page seems small. They really stretched to make this thing a book. It's a long essay.
Second, having read [b:The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory|771|The Elegant Universe Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory|Brian Greene|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1430864039l/771._SY75_.jpg|907243], I can say that that book explains things much better. I only have a layperson's understanding of anything physics, and the usual discussions of relativity (imagine someone shining a beam of light who's in a moving train or on a jet or whatever, and the perceived speed of light from an observer on the train or jet or whatever and a person on the ground, but now accept that the speed of light stays the same but that time must be different for the two observers) are done so casually here that the diagram of a photon bouncing between two plates shows it going vertically while moving laterally, while the discussion is of a beam of light going front to back on an airplane moving forward.
I also found the discussions on quantum theory wanting. Again, I'm comparing it to Greene's discussion, and some famous experiments shooting photons through one slit or two. I can't wrap my head around it entirely, but I still want more than this too-brief discussion that concludes that our universe has many histories. I mean, if you want me to accept that, sell me on it!
Finally, and I guess they were trying to make it 'friendly,' there are a lot of one-liners that aren't funny. They tip their hands, they try too hard, and there's exactly one per section.
I have to acknowledge one thing I liked - there was a short section explaining why we are lucky to exist in three dimensions, and not more, even if the universe itself has more dimensions. Apparently they're aren't simple stable orbits in four dimensions. Oops, I spoiled it.
I would have given this one star except that I realized I might have thought more of this book if I hadn't read Greene's first.
First of all, it's a very short 180 pages. Each new chapter gets a title on one page, then a blank page, then the chapter starts. There are several full page pictures with the backs blank. Even the number of words on a page seems small. They really stretched to make this thing a book. It's a long essay.
Second, having read [b:The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory|771|The Elegant Universe Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory|Brian Greene|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1430864039l/771._SY75_.jpg|907243], I can say that that book explains things much better. I only have a layperson's understanding of anything physics, and the usual discussions of relativity (imagine someone shining a beam of light who's in a moving train or on a jet or whatever, and the perceived speed of light from an observer on the train or jet or whatever and a person on the ground, but now accept that the speed of light stays the same but that time must be different for the two observers) are done so casually here that the diagram of a photon bouncing between two plates shows it going vertically while moving laterally, while the discussion is of a beam of light going front to back on an airplane moving forward.
I also found the discussions on quantum theory wanting. Again, I'm comparing it to Greene's discussion, and some famous experiments shooting photons through one slit or two. I can't wrap my head around it entirely, but I still want more than this too-brief discussion that concludes that our universe has many histories. I mean, if you want me to accept that, sell me on it!
Finally, and I guess they were trying to make it 'friendly,' there are a lot of one-liners that aren't funny. They tip their hands, they try too hard, and there's exactly one per section.
I have to acknowledge one thing I liked - there was a short section explaining why we are lucky to exist in three dimensions, and not more, even if the universe itself has more dimensions. Apparently they're aren't simple stable orbits in four dimensions. Oops, I spoiled it.
I would have given this one star except that I realized I might have thought more of this book if I hadn't read Greene's first.
lizella's review against another edition
4.0
I love these types of books on science. This is one of the most concise and thought-provoking I’ve come across on our understanding of the universe and how we define reality as well as a brief history on how our understanding has progressed through history. I would not expect any less from the mind of Stephen Hawking, with a smattering of humor throughout. I am sure this is one I will revisit from time to time.
okcomp16's review against another edition
4.0
I'm surprised about how much I understood excluding the more complicated math that was mentioned but not explained.
It was mostly theoretical, I understood just about everything or at least I think I did, I can't really know, but for a person that isn't a physicist, the certainty that I have right now surprises me.
That is the biggest compliment I can give this book, despite the fact that is an incredibly complicated subject, It was hard sometimes, but I could read it and finish it. Sometimes information piled and I needed to stop to take a break from all the information but the writing in itself is very accessible.
Regarding the topic, I don't know if it's possible to prove this theory, I need to read more about it, but I understood the logic behind it, the book perfectly explains how this theory came to be.
In the beginning, the book claims "philosophy is dead" but ironically this reads a great deal like a philosophy book and I loved every philosophical moment in here, the chapter "What is reality?" was my favorite and the model-dependent realism has now become my new answer to the question. This mix of philosophy with physics is ideal for me, I felt fascinated by everything I learned and now I have an urge to annoy people by telling them about it.
It was mostly theoretical, I understood just about everything or at least I think I did, I can't really know, but for a person that isn't a physicist, the certainty that I have right now surprises me.
That is the biggest compliment I can give this book, despite the fact that is an incredibly complicated subject, It was hard sometimes, but I could read it and finish it. Sometimes information piled and I needed to stop to take a break from all the information but the writing in itself is very accessible.
Regarding the topic, I don't know if it's possible to prove this theory, I need to read more about it, but I understood the logic behind it, the book perfectly explains how this theory came to be.
In the beginning, the book claims "philosophy is dead" but ironically this reads a great deal like a philosophy book and I loved every philosophical moment in here, the chapter "What is reality?" was my favorite and the model-dependent realism has now become my new answer to the question. This mix of philosophy with physics is ideal for me, I felt fascinated by everything I learned and now I have an urge to annoy people by telling them about it.
wannabekingpin's review against another edition
5.0
all reviews in one place:
night mode reading ;
skaitom nakties rezimu
About the Book: A scientific take on philosophical questions: how, why, and what made the Universe, our planet, us, the way it all is? A beautiful explorative book, full of history, ideas, theories, and known facts.
My Opinion: It’s a very easy to read, and easy to follow book on mysteries of the universe, its very existence. Touching upon many a relevant experiment, and discoveries, Stephen Hawking, and Leonard Mlodinow guides us through the life as we know it.
night mode reading ;
skaitom nakties rezimu
About the Book: A scientific take on philosophical questions: how, why, and what made the Universe, our planet, us, the way it all is? A beautiful explorative book, full of history, ideas, theories, and known facts.
My Opinion: It’s a very easy to read, and easy to follow book on mysteries of the universe, its very existence. Touching upon many a relevant experiment, and discoveries, Stephen Hawking, and Leonard Mlodinow guides us through the life as we know it.
blairconrad's review against another edition
4.0
Pretty fun. Nice pictures, and entertaining. Not as in-depth as say Brian Greene books, so probably more fun for most people.
I enjoyed the anthropic principle bits, but I still don't think that the strong anthropic principle is a huge jump over the weak anthropic...
I enjoyed the anthropic principle bits, but I still don't think that the strong anthropic principle is a huge jump over the weak anthropic...
fshguy's review against another edition
3.0
I'm giving this barely 3, it informed on on some things, but I really don't feel like they really convinced me that M-theory is the end all theory to all. Much less really explained what it is. Of course there are things that probably take a couple reads to get a full grasp, but I felt like I got more out of Hawking's first book many years ago.
clarks_dad's review against another edition
2.0
Overall, The Grand Design was pretty bleak and uninspiring. I think the thing that disappointed me most was the lack of anything new. Several major parts of the big chapters are copied word for word from Hawking's earlier A Brief History of Time and the information on M-Theory leaves a lot to be desired. Mostly, this work is an argument for holding out hope that a Theory of Everything is on the horizon. The book is also very, very short (especially given the hefty price tag). It's almost ridiculously upbeat considering the major mathematical roadblocks preventing the completion of such theories.
In many ways, the title of this book is completely misleading for it fails to deliver any sort of proposals for a grand design at all. Hawking and Mlodinow spend the bulk of the book going over fundamental constants, black holes and interesting, but generally well understood, quantum phenomenon rather than delivering on the promise of the title to tie it all together. It isn't until almost the very end that the authors delve into the mysterious M-Theory, which, at this point, should not even be called a theory. It doesn't even have a proper name. Ask 10 physicists what M-Theory stands for and you'll get 10 different answers ranging from the "Mother of all Theories" to "Membrane Theory" and back again. M-Theory is more of a framework that allows for transformations between different incarnations of 10 dimensional Superstring Theories. Proponents of M-Theory argue that all versions of Superstring Theory are manifestations of this deeper theory. All you have to do is add yet another spatial dimension, bringing the grand total to eleven. One of the arguments in favor of the framework is alluded to by the title of the book: its mathematical elegance. Among the many generally accepted criteria that would validate a theory of everything is beauty. It's gained quite a bit of traction and attention of late because it's a rather neat way of showing the relationships between different versions of theories that all potentially show at least some promise of explaining reality. That's a lot of "maybes" and "looks likes" and not a whole lot of tangible results.
On top of the rehashed nature of the information and its presentation, The Grand Design feels like it has an underlying hostility to it. The purpose of the book is to show that nature itself follows a master plan and to inspire hope that human beings are capable of understanding why it is that things are the way they are without resorting to superstition or an omnipotent and omniscient deity - all worthy and noble goals.
Nevertheless, there are a couple things that Hawking does well. His explanations of theoretical physics applications to cosmology are still top notch, but there's nothing truly groundbreaking. The illustrations are top notch and the book clearly benefitted from some very high production values
In many ways, the title of this book is completely misleading for it fails to deliver any sort of proposals for a grand design at all. Hawking and Mlodinow spend the bulk of the book going over fundamental constants, black holes and interesting, but generally well understood, quantum phenomenon rather than delivering on the promise of the title to tie it all together. It isn't until almost the very end that the authors delve into the mysterious M-Theory, which, at this point, should not even be called a theory. It doesn't even have a proper name. Ask 10 physicists what M-Theory stands for and you'll get 10 different answers ranging from the "Mother of all Theories" to "Membrane Theory" and back again. M-Theory is more of a framework that allows for transformations between different incarnations of 10 dimensional Superstring Theories. Proponents of M-Theory argue that all versions of Superstring Theory are manifestations of this deeper theory. All you have to do is add yet another spatial dimension, bringing the grand total to eleven. One of the arguments in favor of the framework is alluded to by the title of the book: its mathematical elegance. Among the many generally accepted criteria that would validate a theory of everything is beauty. It's gained quite a bit of traction and attention of late because it's a rather neat way of showing the relationships between different versions of theories that all potentially show at least some promise of explaining reality. That's a lot of "maybes" and "looks likes" and not a whole lot of tangible results.
On top of the rehashed nature of the information and its presentation, The Grand Design feels like it has an underlying hostility to it. The purpose of the book is to show that nature itself follows a master plan and to inspire hope that human beings are capable of understanding why it is that things are the way they are without resorting to superstition or an omnipotent and omniscient deity - all worthy and noble goals.
Nevertheless, there are a couple things that Hawking does well. His explanations of theoretical physics applications to cosmology are still top notch, but there's nothing truly groundbreaking. The illustrations are top notch and the book clearly benefitted from some very high production values
jdintr's review against another edition
The Grand Design is an authoritative look at Science's evolving understanding of the Universe--and the mystery at its center the authors identify as "God." While the exposition is good (one of the best descriptions of the warping of space-time and Feynman's theories I've found), I felt their conclusion was unsatisfying. M-theory--String Theory plus 1 dimension--may have fewer infinities and dead ends, but I didn't catch the definitive "magic bullet" that proves it, unless I'm willing to adopt the connections to a "Game of Life" computer simulation.