Scan barcode
bupdaddy's review against another edition
5.0
Greene explains relativity so I get it, quantum physics so I follow it, and string theory so that at least I get what it explains. For me, that's pretty good.
There are a few things in the book, layman though I am, that I know are already a little dated - he keeps referring to the age of the universe as 15 billion years, rather than 13.6 billion. Also, he talks about how some big expansion in the moments just after the big bang would explain how the universe is as big as it is, while gravity slows it down. The problem there is that a couple of years ago scientists realized the expansion of the universe is speeding up.
Then again, given that the book was written in 2000, that says a lot more about the rate of discoveries/new models in cosmological physics than it does about the book.
One thing that bugged me, that I suppose is my dilettante's misunderstanding of it all, is the models that seemed to be pulled out of somebody's butt, that because they could make numbers work in formulae, suddenly are 'proved.' Why strings? I understand (now) the problem in trying to reconcile Einsteinian physics with quantum havoc, but why strings? Why not teeny little clouds, or starfish-shaped thingies, or anything else?
Another thing - he consistently talked about a bunch of extra spatial dimensions beyond the 3 we're familiar with (that make the numbers work), but he talked about those dimensions being really small and curled up (small as in Planck length which is about (squeezes fingers together) thiiissss big). Isn't it more proper to say that our extent into that dimension is curled up and tiny? If I imagine a little picture of a bunny rabbit in a Euclidean plane, the two dimensions of the Euclidean plane aren't small and bunny-like, only my drawing is. If the drawing is on a very thin piece of paper, the dimension of height isn't tiny, only my piece of paper's extent into that dimension is.
But that made me think, well, if the universe is all there is, there's no 'ether' in which to sit and observe our universe's tiny forays into the 9th dimension, maybe the 9th dimension is tiny - it's meaningless to talk about anything else. Then in the last chapter he talks about multiverses, and maybe there are universes that expand out in the dimensions we don't but are tiny in ours, so then I thought I was right again. Plus I got the munchies real bad - I totally could have eaten a Dorito pizza.
Tangentially, this book made me spend some time trying to visualize a 4th spatial dimension. It, like many layman discussions of physics and universal models, uses the weasel-worded assertion that 'it's nearly impossible to visualize a 4th dimension at a right angle to each of the 3 we're familiar with.' Look, is it possible or not? If it is, I want to see it in my mind. Some guy on a message board says he can visualize a tesseract, so I have to believe him or not. In the meantime, I'm going to keep looking around different corners to see if any of them go off into the 4th dimension.
There are a few things in the book, layman though I am, that I know are already a little dated - he keeps referring to the age of the universe as 15 billion years, rather than 13.6 billion. Also, he talks about how some big expansion in the moments just after the big bang would explain how the universe is as big as it is, while gravity slows it down. The problem there is that a couple of years ago scientists realized the expansion of the universe is speeding up.
Then again, given that the book was written in 2000, that says a lot more about the rate of discoveries/new models in cosmological physics than it does about the book.
One thing that bugged me, that I suppose is my dilettante's misunderstanding of it all, is the models that seemed to be pulled out of somebody's butt, that because they could make numbers work in formulae, suddenly are 'proved.' Why strings? I understand (now) the problem in trying to reconcile Einsteinian physics with quantum havoc, but why strings? Why not teeny little clouds, or starfish-shaped thingies, or anything else?
Another thing - he consistently talked about a bunch of extra spatial dimensions beyond the 3 we're familiar with (that make the numbers work), but he talked about those dimensions being really small and curled up (small as in Planck length which is about (squeezes fingers together) thiiissss big). Isn't it more proper to say that our extent into that dimension is curled up and tiny? If I imagine a little picture of a bunny rabbit in a Euclidean plane, the two dimensions of the Euclidean plane aren't small and bunny-like, only my drawing is. If the drawing is on a very thin piece of paper, the dimension of height isn't tiny, only my piece of paper's extent into that dimension is.
But that made me think, well, if the universe is all there is, there's no 'ether' in which to sit and observe our universe's tiny forays into the 9th dimension, maybe the 9th dimension is tiny - it's meaningless to talk about anything else. Then in the last chapter he talks about multiverses, and maybe there are universes that expand out in the dimensions we don't but are tiny in ours, so then I thought I was right again. Plus I got the munchies real bad - I totally could have eaten a Dorito pizza.
Tangentially, this book made me spend some time trying to visualize a 4th spatial dimension. It, like many layman discussions of physics and universal models, uses the weasel-worded assertion that 'it's nearly impossible to visualize a 4th dimension at a right angle to each of the 3 we're familiar with.' Look, is it possible or not? If it is, I want to see it in my mind. Some guy on a message board says he can visualize a tesseract, so I have to believe him or not. In the meantime, I'm going to keep looking around different corners to see if any of them go off into the 4th dimension.
scheu's review against another edition
4.0
I can't explain string theory, but after reading this book I feel like I understand the bare underpinnings of it. Much better than I could before, at any rate. I'm sure that if I read through this enough times I would get the hang of it.
clarke11235's review against another edition
5.0
Mind blowing. A great read for anyone interested in theoretical physics. (I know i'm such a nerd)
kb_208's review against another edition
3.0
This is a pretty good book starting out, but since I am no physics buff it got lost on me during the last few chapters. The basics are really interesting and good to know, but beyond that you really need to dive head-on into string theory and quantum physics. The author does a good job giving you a good background and examples of these theories and provides pictures. This is pretty complicated stuff it is hard to wrap my head around, but I feel it is good to know and I find these theories very interesting. A good book to check out if interested at all in these types of sciences.
blairconrad's review against another edition
5.0
An excellent book. Greene does a very good job of explaining advanced physical theories to the layman. I enjoyed his writing, and the examples used were clear, interesting, and often funny. All of the more advanced mathematics was hidden behind endnotes, many of which could be skipped, if the reader desired.
The book starts with excellent introductions of Einstein’s special and general relativity – by far the best that I’ve ever read. I did find that the content became more advanced as the book continued, and after two-thirds of the way through, I stopped reading the endnotes “for the mathematically inclined”, because I’d hit the level of my inclination. I didn’t find that this reduced my enjoyment of the book any, though.
Read it.
The book starts with excellent introductions of Einstein’s special and general relativity – by far the best that I’ve ever read. I did find that the content became more advanced as the book continued, and after two-thirds of the way through, I stopped reading the endnotes “for the mathematically inclined”, because I’d hit the level of my inclination. I didn’t find that this reduced my enjoyment of the book any, though.
Read it.
clarks_dad's review against another edition
5.0
Still one of the better books about the recent findings in String/M-Theory for the lay reader. Fortunately, the ridiculous abstract math is left in the endnotes for the brave. Say what you will about the validity of String Theory (or framework, or whatever), Brian Greene does a fantastic job at visualizing difficult and abstract concepts. He seems to be a veritable font of analogies that make brilliant sense and clarify ideas that only lines before made your eyes cross.
The book is nicely divided up, so even if you didn't want to learn anything about strings or Planck-sized physics, you could still get a nice summary of the major advancements in the field up to the standard model, including relativity, by reading the first half of the book and then calling it quits. If you're interested in something more, the second half is for you.
Along the way are some wonderful philosophical questions as they relate to the study of physics and Greene covers them with equal aplomb: What is the point of continued reductionism? How do such theories pertain to free will?
The ending chapters are nicely left open. Optimistic, without being assured, which is entirely, scientifically appropriate. The problem everyone seems to have is that String Theory is in a way divorced from typical scientific endeavor, led by experiment and observation. It is instead buried in complex mathematics that are supposed to reflect a universe that many of us find difficult to visualize - one of 10 spatial dimensions, and single dimensional strings (or multi-dimensional branes) vibrating at different energy levels to create the different subatomic elementary particles, which in turn assemble to create atoms, which create molecules, etc. etc. The point is, for all the predictive power of the equations (based on perturbation methodology - approximations no less) string theory has yet to provide a measurable quantitative fact. Sure it does provide a framework for melding relativity and quantum mechanics, but so could loop quantum gravity - without the extra dimensions! Proponents of course argue that we simply lack the refined tools necessary to find the evidence by measuring Planck level distances and energies, or that by proving supersymmetry and super-partner particles we could be on our way to confirming at least the usefulness of the theory.
All that being said, I like the idea of it. It's abstract and the discoveries of this "science" are on the blackboard in equations rather than in the laboratory, but the idea that human beings can delve into the fabric of the universe by understanding the fundamentals of mathematics is appealing to me. It's like conquering the world with sheer intellect and I look forward to the work of the LHC to see if indeed String theorists like Mr. Greene have succeeded, or failed spectacularly.
The book is nicely divided up, so even if you didn't want to learn anything about strings or Planck-sized physics, you could still get a nice summary of the major advancements in the field up to the standard model, including relativity, by reading the first half of the book and then calling it quits. If you're interested in something more, the second half is for you.
Along the way are some wonderful philosophical questions as they relate to the study of physics and Greene covers them with equal aplomb: What is the point of continued reductionism? How do such theories pertain to free will?
The ending chapters are nicely left open. Optimistic, without being assured, which is entirely, scientifically appropriate. The problem everyone seems to have is that String Theory is in a way divorced from typical scientific endeavor, led by experiment and observation. It is instead buried in complex mathematics that are supposed to reflect a universe that many of us find difficult to visualize - one of 10 spatial dimensions, and single dimensional strings (or multi-dimensional branes) vibrating at different energy levels to create the different subatomic elementary particles, which in turn assemble to create atoms, which create molecules, etc. etc. The point is, for all the predictive power of the equations (based on perturbation methodology - approximations no less) string theory has yet to provide a measurable quantitative fact. Sure it does provide a framework for melding relativity and quantum mechanics, but so could loop quantum gravity - without the extra dimensions! Proponents of course argue that we simply lack the refined tools necessary to find the evidence by measuring Planck level distances and energies, or that by proving supersymmetry and super-partner particles we could be on our way to confirming at least the usefulness of the theory.
All that being said, I like the idea of it. It's abstract and the discoveries of this "science" are on the blackboard in equations rather than in the laboratory, but the idea that human beings can delve into the fabric of the universe by understanding the fundamentals of mathematics is appealing to me. It's like conquering the world with sheer intellect and I look forward to the work of the LHC to see if indeed String theorists like Mr. Greene have succeeded, or failed spectacularly.
adamrshields's review against another edition
3.0
Short Review: The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene - I think that this is a good book for people with a science background. My science back ground is poor and while the writing is good it is still over my head. I got through about 60 percent and by that time I was understanding less and less because I hadn't understood the earlier parts well enough. It seems well written.
My slightly longer review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/the-elegant-universe/
My slightly longer review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/the-elegant-universe/