Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.75 AVERAGE
3.75 AVERAGE
slow-paced
challenging
reflective
Though I have LOTS of questions now, it was a really interesting book to listen to. And it was read by the author.
I didn't get a half of it. I'll probably reread some chapters but may be quantum physics just disagrees with me. I wonder if Greg Egan has some fiction based on this stuff though.
Interesting, gets a bit preachy in places, but the science is fascinating and well explained.
challenging
informative
fast-paced
The main idea of this book is to explain the possibility of there being a universe, ours or others that exist in a system of multiverses, that are created out of "nothing". This concept of nothing not actually being the nothing as we understand it in our everyday lives wasn't foreign to me; it requires you to reimagine emptiness not as the absence of everything but as a perfect balance of fundamental matter and antimatter. When that balance of the two types of matter is disrupted, when there is more matter than antimatter, that is what causes this explosion of matter that we know of as the Big Bang which created everything that we have and will be able to observe. The properties of this universe, its flatness and how light can only travel in straight lines (I think, on the second point?) is the focus of the first nine chapters of this book, and seems to not be written for the casually interested reader like myself but for scientists looking for brief reintroductions to what is understood today. Theories get thrown around without much background, and Krauss makes tons of assumptions that you come into this book with a background in quantum physics in my opinion. The last three chapters and the epilogue should've been first, because that's the first time a reader gets any semblance of background into what created the universe and what the Big Bang was. I was even doubting a lot of my past reading into the creation of our universe, the Big Bang being a disturbance in the vacuum of matter and antimatter balance, because of all of the complicated theoretical writing with no context in the first nine chapters. The last three chapters actually explain this very well to the reader, and would've been an excellent basis on which to understand the theory of inflation and constant expansion of the universe and its implications (which I thought were really interesting!). It doesn't help that the book is written so smoothly that I found myself flying through it only to have to stop every five pages and be like, "what did I actually just read?".
The God question inevitably comes up as well, and while I can get behind the ultimate conclusion Krauss comes to (theologians use God as the "first clause" to shut down scientific exploration, and convince people to not be naturally curious about the world around them), I feel like a lot of popular scientific writers are incredibly highfalutin and love to show the readers that they're smarter than people who think otherwise. I understand why, to a degree, because Krauss talks about Christopher Hitchens having to debate gasbags like Dinesh D'Souza who might be my least favorite commentator ever, but I can't help but wonder if scientific writers could get off their high horses a little bit and talk about these topics in more friendly ways they might find more sympathetic readers (this book is filled with one-liners about dumb American high schoolers and stuff that just make your eyes roll a little bit).
The reason I feel so strongly about this is because these types of books have helped me find a more spiritual basis in my own life, strangely enough. This idea of something arising from nothing, that nothing is just balance between different types of matter, almost perfectly summarizes my understanding of Buddhist concepts of finding Nirvana through meditation. The goal of meditation, as it's been explained to me, is to not think of anything. That doesn't mean to just sit in nothingness as much as it is to be aware of consciousness. I think there's something to this alternate definition of nothing both in quantum physics and in meditation that brings someone to a place of spiritual health that someone smarter than me should explore, maybe I can explore it more deeply in a place that isn't a review for a book. Either way, sometimes I wonder if other people who read about science view it as a pathway to spirituality in the same way that I do. If science writers knew that a community of thinkers like this existed, would their tones shift in their work? Probably not, but I think it's a fun idea to toy with.
I'm happy I read this book, and ultimately thought it was interesting, but only because I've read quite a few books on this topic and feel like I have a good working background knowledge of the complicated nature of the Big Bang. I wouldn't recommend this book to friends, only to people who have also read a bit on the topic. If a friend is convinced that they want to read it, I would tell them to read it backwards. Start at chapter 9, read through the end, and then start at chapter 1.
The God question inevitably comes up as well, and while I can get behind the ultimate conclusion Krauss comes to (theologians use God as the "first clause" to shut down scientific exploration, and convince people to not be naturally curious about the world around them), I feel like a lot of popular scientific writers are incredibly highfalutin and love to show the readers that they're smarter than people who think otherwise. I understand why, to a degree, because Krauss talks about Christopher Hitchens having to debate gasbags like Dinesh D'Souza who might be my least favorite commentator ever, but I can't help but wonder if scientific writers could get off their high horses a little bit and talk about these topics in more friendly ways they might find more sympathetic readers (this book is filled with one-liners about dumb American high schoolers and stuff that just make your eyes roll a little bit).
The reason I feel so strongly about this is because these types of books have helped me find a more spiritual basis in my own life, strangely enough. This idea of something arising from nothing, that nothing is just balance between different types of matter, almost perfectly summarizes my understanding of Buddhist concepts of finding Nirvana through meditation. The goal of meditation, as it's been explained to me, is to not think of anything. That doesn't mean to just sit in nothingness as much as it is to be aware of consciousness. I think there's something to this alternate definition of nothing both in quantum physics and in meditation that brings someone to a place of spiritual health that someone smarter than me should explore, maybe I can explore it more deeply in a place that isn't a review for a book. Either way, sometimes I wonder if other people who read about science view it as a pathway to spirituality in the same way that I do. If science writers knew that a community of thinkers like this existed, would their tones shift in their work? Probably not, but I think it's a fun idea to toy with.
I'm happy I read this book, and ultimately thought it was interesting, but only because I've read quite a few books on this topic and feel like I have a good working background knowledge of the complicated nature of the Big Bang. I wouldn't recommend this book to friends, only to people who have also read a bit on the topic. If a friend is convinced that they want to read it, I would tell them to read it backwards. Start at chapter 9, read through the end, and then start at chapter 1.
challenging
funny
informative
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
I really didn't think I'd be able to follow this book, but the author has a style that allows even a semi-educated goof from Tennessee to understand. Quite a few interesting points that I have never heard or considered.
Pourquoi y a-t-il quelque chose plutôt que rien ?
C’est une question qui a toujours titillé l’humanité, que ce soit du côté de la communauté scientifique ou religieuse. Très bien documenté et écrit, ce livre décrit l’existence de la matière, de l’énergie (de tout, en fait), à partir du « rien » originel.
Un très bon livre, dont le but est de d’éclairer le lecteur sur la création de notre univers, et de tout ce qui le compose, d’une manière très respectueuse. Rien de tel qu’un livre de ce genre, sur un sujet aussi intéressant, pour en apprécier la beauté ! Je préciserai simplement qu’il n’est pas nécessairement pour vous si vous êtres religieux, ou en tout cas pas prêt à mettre de côté vos idéologies ou d’entendre les arguments scientifiques y faisant opposition - l’auteur est apparemment celui sur qui le blame tombe en ce moment, malgré l’attention portée aux détails et aux données et preuves apportées ici.
Un coup de coeur pour ce livre très adapté au grand public, et l’épilogue de Richard Dawkins est aussi une petite pépite.
Why is there something rather than nothing ?
It is a question that has always piqued mankind, for both the scientific or religious communities. Very well-documented and written, this book describes the existence of matter, energy (of everything in fact), from the « original nothing ».
A very good book, which aims to enlighten the reader on the creation of the universe, and of everything inside it, in a very respectful manner. Nothing like a book like this, on this very interesting subject, to appreciate its beauty. I will simply clarify that it is not necessarily for you if you are religious, or at any rate, not ready to let your ideologies aside or to her scientific arguments opposing it - the author is apparently the one who takes the blame at the moment for it, despite the attention brought to details and empirical data and evidence here.
A favorite of mine, very well adapted to the mainstream public, and the afterword from Richard Dawkins is a gem.
C’est une question qui a toujours titillé l’humanité, que ce soit du côté de la communauté scientifique ou religieuse. Très bien documenté et écrit, ce livre décrit l’existence de la matière, de l’énergie (de tout, en fait), à partir du « rien » originel.
Un très bon livre, dont le but est de d’éclairer le lecteur sur la création de notre univers, et de tout ce qui le compose, d’une manière très respectueuse. Rien de tel qu’un livre de ce genre, sur un sujet aussi intéressant, pour en apprécier la beauté ! Je préciserai simplement qu’il n’est pas nécessairement pour vous si vous êtres religieux, ou en tout cas pas prêt à mettre de côté vos idéologies ou d’entendre les arguments scientifiques y faisant opposition - l’auteur est apparemment celui sur qui le blame tombe en ce moment, malgré l’attention portée aux détails et aux données et preuves apportées ici.
Un coup de coeur pour ce livre très adapté au grand public, et l’épilogue de Richard Dawkins est aussi une petite pépite.
Why is there something rather than nothing ?
It is a question that has always piqued mankind, for both the scientific or religious communities. Very well-documented and written, this book describes the existence of matter, energy (of everything in fact), from the « original nothing ».
A very good book, which aims to enlighten the reader on the creation of the universe, and of everything inside it, in a very respectful manner. Nothing like a book like this, on this very interesting subject, to appreciate its beauty. I will simply clarify that it is not necessarily for you if you are religious, or at any rate, not ready to let your ideologies aside or to her scientific arguments opposing it - the author is apparently the one who takes the blame at the moment for it, despite the attention brought to details and empirical data and evidence here.
A favorite of mine, very well adapted to the mainstream public, and the afterword from Richard Dawkins is a gem.
While reading the book, I felt like I was able to understand some of the concepts he was talking about at a low level. Now, I'm not sure I would be able to meaningfully summarize them, so I'm not going to try.
I enjoyed the book, it moved at a good pace and was engaging.
I enjoyed the book, it moved at a good pace and was engaging.