Scan barcode
randomcarpediem's review against another edition
1.0
The one thing that attracted me to this book was the science. I love to read about Einstein and his theories. While there is a spattering of physics throughout the book there is not enough to save the book.
Right from the beginning I kept thinking this book is just like Mark Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" except it is based on physics and not art and religion and is even lamer. The main character of "Final Theory" is a professor who specializes in the history of physics and he has written a book about all the great people in the physics' world. He is asked to go to the hospital to see a dying physicist and before the man expires he gives David Swift a set of numbers that are a key to Einstein's "Theory of Everything".
After receiving the set of seemingly random numbers David's life is quickly swept into a world containing FBI agents, terrorists, other physicists, and brutal killings; this world is so unrealistic that it makes you cringe. David has to figure out what the set of numbers mean and he has to save the world at the same time; of course he has the help of an attractive female physicist.
The situations in the book are so implausible that most of the time I shook my head and thought, seriously, life is not like this at all. The only redeemable part of the book is the tiny bit of science in it, but not enough to give the book more than one star.
Right from the beginning I kept thinking this book is just like Mark Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" except it is based on physics and not art and religion and is even lamer. The main character of "Final Theory" is a professor who specializes in the history of physics and he has written a book about all the great people in the physics' world. He is asked to go to the hospital to see a dying physicist and before the man expires he gives David Swift a set of numbers that are a key to Einstein's "Theory of Everything".
After receiving the set of seemingly random numbers David's life is quickly swept into a world containing FBI agents, terrorists, other physicists, and brutal killings; this world is so unrealistic that it makes you cringe. David has to figure out what the set of numbers mean and he has to save the world at the same time; of course he has the help of an attractive female physicist.
The situations in the book are so implausible that most of the time I shook my head and thought, seriously, life is not like this at all. The only redeemable part of the book is the tiny bit of science in it, but not enough to give the book more than one star.
ihateprozac's review against another edition
4.0
A couple of weekends ago, I found myself out and about with several hours to kill before an event, and no Kindle or iPad to be found. I headed into the nearest newsagent, hoping that they'd have a selection of cheap books available, and thankfully they did! I've been on a historical conspiracy thriller kick lately, and Final Theory sounded right up my alley. I'm happy to say that it was $4.50 well spent!
These kinds of books usually seek to explain some sort of historical secret or conspiracy using science: like Dan Brown using antimatter to explain Genesis, or James Rollins chalking up the loss of the ancient city of Ubar to a freak lightning storm in [b:Sandstorm|183822|Sandstorm|James Rollins|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1305960920s/183822.jpg|868206]. But Final Theory was a little different. In this case the science was the historical secret. The characters are rushing to discover a scientific theory that was hidden by Albert Einstein some 50 years ago, that if harnessed, could destroy the world.
I'm not scientifically inclined at all. I enjoy reading news about various scientific breakthroughs, but only if they're in the most layman's terms. I can't do maths, physics or chemistry to save my life, and my brain instantly goes into panic mode if I'm confronted with anything but the most simple equation. That's why I like these books: they explore the craziest areas of science, but break it down for the average person to understand.
That being said, there were times in Final Theory where I did get lost. I'm sure a physics major would instantly see how the Unified Theory could be weaponised, but I was lost until they explicitly said 'we can do this and this and blow up ALL THE THINGS'. Maybe it's the Supernatural fan in me that loves a biblical apocalypse story, but I was hoping that somehow knowing the Unified Theory could trigger the unravelling of our world: that everything would start breaking down not unlike what the swarms of alien 'termites' do in The Day The Earth Stood Still.
I was also lost during the final scenes at Fermilab. I understood the general premise: smash particles together and create sterile neutrinos that go for a frolic through spacetime and emerge somewhere else for a little fireworks display. But Alpert threw in a lot of extra info about the Tevatron that was totally lost on me. I don't think the reader needed to know so much about the process; just inform the reader that the machine uses super magnets and helium to direct the particles, so the reader isn't surprised when Swift takes an axe to the helium pipes. Just briefly mention the use of mineral oil to detect neutrinos, and the impossibility for a human to swim in it, so the reader isn't surprised when Brock drowns in the stuff. We don't need to know all the scientific details, that doing x and y in the Tevatron creates z, and that neutrinos create little flashes in the mineral oil.
All that being said, I wasn't surprised to read the Author's Note where Alpert says that he writes for Scientific American. I've never bothered to Google String Theory (for fear of sending my brain into panic mode), so all I knew was that it partially explains the universe. I'm now happy to say that I have a very basic understanding of what it is, and I avoided a brain meltdown! I still don't know anything about relativity, quantum mechanics or particles, but this book taught me that relativity and string theory use maths that aren't compatible. To me, math is math, so the idea of different types of physics being like different languages was new and fascinating to me.
Much in the way that Robert Langdon is a Gary Stu for Dan Brown, I was unsurprised to read that Mark Alpert's career path mirrored David Swift's: he had started out as a physicist, but eventually realised that he didn't have the aptitude to be one of the greats in the field, and that his real talents lay in writing. It was really refreshing to read a historical conspiracy novel where the main character isn't this expert in the field that all others defer to on the subject. I enjoyed the scenes where Swift just couldn't keep up with Monique's physics blather, needing her to break it down for him. It made Swift so much more human, compared to Dan Brown's Robert Langdon, who sounds like a robot reciting Wikipedia entries when he's called on to explain a symbol.
That being said, the dialogue wasn't perfect. While it never read like Wikipedia, some of the dialogue was wooden and forced. When Monique's boyfriend yelled at David about being a Nazi, the scene felt forced and contrived, like David would wake up and we'd realise it was an absurd dream sequence. Karen's explanation of the divorce also failed to hit the mark, feeling rushed and unbelievable. It essentially read like 'I'm a selfish bitch and wanted a big house and nice clothes, but he dressed too casually for my taste and didn't go for a promotion that would've let us upgrade the house, so I divorced him'. Fair enough if that had been David's perspective on the divorce, portraying Karen as a superficial selfish bitch, but it was Karen's perspective!
The scene with the Super Soaker was also ridiculous, reminding me of this irrational teacher I had in high school. This teacher read an article once upon a time about a kid getting set on fire by other children when they were dropped off at school before teachers arrived for the day. This teacher lived far away, and was convinced that if she dropped her kids off early (often it was still dark in Winter), the same thing would happen to them. Karen's dislike for the Super Soaker was on that level of irrationality.
Thankfully the other characters were written a lot better. Simon and Brock were utterly repulsive villains, and days later I still feel sick over Brock being so perverse that he would actually masturbate over the torture and attempted murder of David and his family. It's funny how a disturbed villain is a prerequisite of writing in this genre, but I never fail to be surprised by the creepy monsters cooked up by authors. I felt no sympathy for Simon's family perishing at the hands of the American soldiers, not when the crimes he'd committed in revenge were so much more foul. He deserved a much more painful and grisly death than death-by-golf cart, but at least he did die. Brock's death was spectacular and utterly deserved, and I was hoping for something just as gory for Simon.
I really liked Monique. I liked that she had come from a poor background to become the first African American woman in physics, and admired how she continued to deal with racism in this day and age. I liked her strong sense of independence: living just for her in buying that Corvette and sleeping with a guy half her age, not being phased in the least by the knowledge that he had other women on the side.
I loved the inclusion of Michael as an autistic child, too. Although I can't say that I've read too much into the subject, I do find autism fascinating: the concept that while they don't interpret and interact with the world as non-autistic people do, they can do things that the rest of us simply aren't capable of: memorising phone directories, recreating scenes via charcoal or paint that they only glimpsed for a few seconds, and knowing how many matchsticks are in that pile. I remember being intrigued by Philip K Dick's [b:Martian Time-Slip|697251|Martian Time-Slip|Philip K. Dick|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320505050s/697251.jpg|802401] book, in which he theorised that autistic people interpret the passage of time differently. While it's obviously not the current dominant scientific understanding of the issue, it was a fascinating take on it nonetheless and really stuck with me!
Overall: I went into this expecting a run of the mill historical conspiracy, and ended up with something more grounded in science! It was entertaining nonetheless, filled with despicable villains and breaking down string theory so even I could understand it. Although some of the dialogue was wooden and the science a bit complex at times, it was $4.50 well spent!
These kinds of books usually seek to explain some sort of historical secret or conspiracy using science: like Dan Brown using antimatter to explain Genesis, or James Rollins chalking up the loss of the ancient city of Ubar to a freak lightning storm in [b:Sandstorm|183822|Sandstorm|James Rollins|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1305960920s/183822.jpg|868206]. But Final Theory was a little different. In this case the science was the historical secret. The characters are rushing to discover a scientific theory that was hidden by Albert Einstein some 50 years ago, that if harnessed, could destroy the world.
I'm not scientifically inclined at all. I enjoy reading news about various scientific breakthroughs, but only if they're in the most layman's terms. I can't do maths, physics or chemistry to save my life, and my brain instantly goes into panic mode if I'm confronted with anything but the most simple equation. That's why I like these books: they explore the craziest areas of science, but break it down for the average person to understand.
That being said, there were times in Final Theory where I did get lost. I'm sure a physics major would instantly see how the Unified Theory could be weaponised, but I was lost until they explicitly said 'we can do this and this and blow up ALL THE THINGS'. Maybe it's the Supernatural fan in me that loves a biblical apocalypse story, but I was hoping that somehow knowing the Unified Theory could trigger the unravelling of our world: that everything would start breaking down not unlike what the swarms of alien 'termites' do in The Day The Earth Stood Still.
I was also lost during the final scenes at Fermilab. I understood the general premise: smash particles together and create sterile neutrinos that go for a frolic through spacetime and emerge somewhere else for a little fireworks display. But Alpert threw in a lot of extra info about the Tevatron that was totally lost on me. I don't think the reader needed to know so much about the process; just inform the reader that the machine uses super magnets and helium to direct the particles, so the reader isn't surprised when Swift takes an axe to the helium pipes. Just briefly mention the use of mineral oil to detect neutrinos, and the impossibility for a human to swim in it, so the reader isn't surprised when Brock drowns in the stuff. We don't need to know all the scientific details, that doing x and y in the Tevatron creates z, and that neutrinos create little flashes in the mineral oil.
All that being said, I wasn't surprised to read the Author's Note where Alpert says that he writes for Scientific American. I've never bothered to Google String Theory (for fear of sending my brain into panic mode), so all I knew was that it partially explains the universe. I'm now happy to say that I have a very basic understanding of what it is, and I avoided a brain meltdown! I still don't know anything about relativity, quantum mechanics or particles, but this book taught me that relativity and string theory use maths that aren't compatible. To me, math is math, so the idea of different types of physics being like different languages was new and fascinating to me.
Much in the way that Robert Langdon is a Gary Stu for Dan Brown, I was unsurprised to read that Mark Alpert's career path mirrored David Swift's: he had started out as a physicist, but eventually realised that he didn't have the aptitude to be one of the greats in the field, and that his real talents lay in writing. It was really refreshing to read a historical conspiracy novel where the main character isn't this expert in the field that all others defer to on the subject. I enjoyed the scenes where Swift just couldn't keep up with Monique's physics blather, needing her to break it down for him. It made Swift so much more human, compared to Dan Brown's Robert Langdon, who sounds like a robot reciting Wikipedia entries when he's called on to explain a symbol.
That being said, the dialogue wasn't perfect. While it never read like Wikipedia, some of the dialogue was wooden and forced. When Monique's boyfriend yelled at David about being a Nazi, the scene felt forced and contrived, like David would wake up and we'd realise it was an absurd dream sequence. Karen's explanation of the divorce also failed to hit the mark, feeling rushed and unbelievable. It essentially read like 'I'm a selfish bitch and wanted a big house and nice clothes, but he dressed too casually for my taste and didn't go for a promotion that would've let us upgrade the house, so I divorced him'. Fair enough if that had been David's perspective on the divorce, portraying Karen as a superficial selfish bitch, but it was Karen's perspective!
The scene with the Super Soaker was also ridiculous, reminding me of this irrational teacher I had in high school. This teacher read an article once upon a time about a kid getting set on fire by other children when they were dropped off at school before teachers arrived for the day. This teacher lived far away, and was convinced that if she dropped her kids off early (often it was still dark in Winter), the same thing would happen to them. Karen's dislike for the Super Soaker was on that level of irrationality.
Thankfully the other characters were written a lot better. Simon and Brock were utterly repulsive villains, and days later I still feel sick over Brock being so perverse that he would actually masturbate over the torture and attempted murder of David and his family. It's funny how a disturbed villain is a prerequisite of writing in this genre, but I never fail to be surprised by the creepy monsters cooked up by authors. I felt no sympathy for Simon's family perishing at the hands of the American soldiers, not when the crimes he'd committed in revenge were so much more foul. He deserved a much more painful and grisly death than death-by-golf cart, but at least he did die. Brock's death was spectacular and utterly deserved, and I was hoping for something just as gory for Simon.
I really liked Monique. I liked that she had come from a poor background to become the first African American woman in physics, and admired how she continued to deal with racism in this day and age. I liked her strong sense of independence: living just for her in buying that Corvette and sleeping with a guy half her age, not being phased in the least by the knowledge that he had other women on the side.
I loved the inclusion of Michael as an autistic child, too. Although I can't say that I've read too much into the subject, I do find autism fascinating: the concept that while they don't interpret and interact with the world as non-autistic people do, they can do things that the rest of us simply aren't capable of: memorising phone directories, recreating scenes via charcoal or paint that they only glimpsed for a few seconds, and knowing how many matchsticks are in that pile. I remember being intrigued by Philip K Dick's [b:Martian Time-Slip|697251|Martian Time-Slip|Philip K. Dick|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320505050s/697251.jpg|802401] book, in which he theorised that autistic people interpret the passage of time differently. While it's obviously not the current dominant scientific understanding of the issue, it was a fascinating take on it nonetheless and really stuck with me!
Overall: I went into this expecting a run of the mill historical conspiracy, and ended up with something more grounded in science! It was entertaining nonetheless, filled with despicable villains and breaking down string theory so even I could understand it. Although some of the dialogue was wooden and the science a bit complex at times, it was $4.50 well spent!
margocandela's review against another edition
3.0
Fun, fast and educational read. Has movie written all over it. I enjoyed it, passed it on to my sister who I'm sure will like it too and I can't wait to see what happens when it storms book stores this summer. I'm not in the business of making predictions, but I think Final Theory is going to be huge.
i11iane's review against another edition
4.0
First time reading anything by this author, and was delighted to find it a good story, well-paced, with nice twists. Looking forward to his other stuff.
gbdill's review against another edition
3.0
Started out really good. Interesting premise of the book. Quantum physics and if placed in the wrong hands could possibly be used to the detriment of mankind. But, it did seem to drag on. 90% of the book is about the protagonist eluding his captors. Kind of got old after awhile. I did all I could to finish the book, but managed to get through it. Likely won't jump to the sequel of the story.