Take a photo of a barcode or cover
275 reviews for:
El universo elegante: Supercuerdas, dimensiones ocultas y la búsqueda de una teoría final
Brian Greene
4.04 AVERAGE
275 reviews for:
El universo elegante: Supercuerdas, dimensiones ocultas y la búsqueda de una teoría final
Brian Greene
4.04 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
This book presents the latest theories in a way which is understandable and very readable.
I looked forward to the others and they were just as good.
I looked forward to the others and they were just as good.
I enjoyed this book, though I will say that I got pretty lost once it got past the basics of string theory. I listened via audiobook, so perhaps this would be better as a read so I could reread parts I didn't understand (i.e. most of the book :)).
Este ha sido mi libro científico del año y he de decir que he estado por lo menos medio año con él.
La verdad es que me ha gustado, tiene partes algo más densas o que entran en más detalle y pueden hacerse más complicadas, pero por lo general, Brian Greene tiene un gran poder de explicación que lo hace asequible, ameno e interesante. Muchas cuestiones científicas que se explican aquí ya las había leído previamente en otros libros, pero Brian Green explica conceptos desde otro punto de vista, tal vez con otras palabras, que me ha abierto los ojos y me ha ayudado a comprender mejor muchas cosas. A menudo me tenía pensando: "Vaya, esto nunca me lo habían explicado así y resulta muy visual".
La primera mitad, centrada en la relatividad, en el universo, el Big Bang, la mecánica cuántica, la gravedad... Es de 10 para mí.
La segunda mitad se mete de lleno en el tema de la teoría de cuerdas y aunque de primeras me parecía interesante, es cierto que para mi gusto o mis intereses, se termina profundizando demasiado en todos los detalles e implicaciones de esta teoría que para mi nivel de física, pues era un poco demasiado. Por eso hubo capítulos hacia la segunda mitad que se me hicieron más cuesta arriba y con demasiado detalle que a mi, personalmente, no me interesaba tanto. Si no hubiera sido por eso la lectura hubiera sido sobresaliente, pero para gustos los colores.
Si os interesa la teoría de cuerdas hasta ese nivel, sin duda este va a ser vuestro libro. Si no... Os recomiendo leer la primera mitad y luego, de la segunda mitad, leed el principio, para haceros una idea más genérica de la teoría de cuerdas.
La verdad es que me ha gustado, tiene partes algo más densas o que entran en más detalle y pueden hacerse más complicadas, pero por lo general, Brian Greene tiene un gran poder de explicación que lo hace asequible, ameno e interesante. Muchas cuestiones científicas que se explican aquí ya las había leído previamente en otros libros, pero Brian Green explica conceptos desde otro punto de vista, tal vez con otras palabras, que me ha abierto los ojos y me ha ayudado a comprender mejor muchas cosas. A menudo me tenía pensando: "Vaya, esto nunca me lo habían explicado así y resulta muy visual".
La primera mitad, centrada en la relatividad, en el universo, el Big Bang, la mecánica cuántica, la gravedad... Es de 10 para mí.
La segunda mitad se mete de lleno en el tema de la teoría de cuerdas y aunque de primeras me parecía interesante, es cierto que para mi gusto o mis intereses, se termina profundizando demasiado en todos los detalles e implicaciones de esta teoría que para mi nivel de física, pues era un poco demasiado. Por eso hubo capítulos hacia la segunda mitad que se me hicieron más cuesta arriba y con demasiado detalle que a mi, personalmente, no me interesaba tanto. Si no hubiera sido por eso la lectura hubiera sido sobresaliente, pero para gustos los colores.
Si os interesa la teoría de cuerdas hasta ese nivel, sin duda este va a ser vuestro libro. Si no... Os recomiendo leer la primera mitad y luego, de la segunda mitad, leed el principio, para haceros una idea más genérica de la teoría de cuerdas.
What this book is: an engaging overview of the history, context, and basic framework of string theory, with emphasis on scientific aesthetics and the value of personal persistence.
What this book is not: a detailed, mathematically rigorous look at string theory, with emphasis on objectivity and scientific validity.
I enjoyed this book very much, both for the fascinating subject matter and for Greene's entertaining style. He does a good job of helping the reader visualize many of the more counter- (or completely non-) intuitive aspects of particle and quantum physics. The only caveat to keep in mind is that Greene is a string theorist, and sometimes he seems to be writing more from his own personal affection for the "beauty of the theory" than from any attempt at an unbiased study of the theory's problems or validity.
What this book is not: a detailed, mathematically rigorous look at string theory, with emphasis on objectivity and scientific validity.
I enjoyed this book very much, both for the fascinating subject matter and for Greene's entertaining style. He does a good job of helping the reader visualize many of the more counter- (or completely non-) intuitive aspects of particle and quantum physics. The only caveat to keep in mind is that Greene is a string theorist, and sometimes he seems to be writing more from his own personal affection for the "beauty of the theory" than from any attempt at an unbiased study of the theory's problems or validity.
Not nearly as good as I had hoped. The book starts off strong, but turns into a rah-rah, fund my research book with lots more hand waving than results.
Brian Greene has done an outstanding job in explaining the most complex areas of Physics in layman's terms.
AN INTRODUCTION BY WAY OF HYPERBOLIC SENTIMENT: The Elegant Universe is "The Bible" of superstring theory[*:].
I close the covers of The Elegant Universe with powerfully mixed feelings. On the one hand, Brian Greene gives us a lucidly-written layman's-terms explanation for high-concept modern physics, providing an excellent survey of 20th century science and painting a vivid picture of a promising strategy for reconciling the discrepancies in the otherwise dominant theories. On the other hand, about half-way through the text, it devolves into (what feels like) a navel-gazing vanity project that fails to connect that promising strategy with the target audience (i.e., the layman that actually gives a damn about modern science).
To be clear: the first third of the book is a remarkable accomplishment. Brian Greene is a cogent writer with a wonderful pedagogical streak that is able to produce a clear image of some otherwise hard-to-decipher concepts in modern physics. Because of The Elegant Universe, I feel like I now have a fairly good understanding of the core concepts underlying Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics (e.g., Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). Greene is also able to give a decent explanation regarding how these theories break down when you try to "merge" them (e.g., like when you come up with "infinite energy" and/or "infinite mass" and/or "infinite probabilities" through calculations of black holes or the Big Bang).
This first third of the book is very accessible, very enjoyable, and very informative. Engaging, fascinating, and extremely powerful.
Somewhere during that potent 130-150 pages, Greene remarks (something to the effect of): You cannot be said to fully understand something until you can explain both its system and significance to a complete stranger. (Not a quote, but I'm sure you know what I'm getting at...)
And with that statement does Dr. Greene undermine the remaining two-thirds of the book. After introducing string theory, after explaining that it is a strategy with the potential to marry relativity and quantum mechanics, after getting you (the lay-reader) excited that you too will have some insight into the critical significance that is superstring theory — he glosses over some math (which doesn't really feel like physics after that first 120 pages) and more/less asks you to "bear with me here, trust me..." EXAMPLE: after introducing the concept of strings, the text rushes into a discussion of 6-dimensional "curled up" Calabi-Yau manifolds without really giving a good way of visualizing that whole mess[†:]. EXAMPLE: after 2 or 3 chapters about string theory where Greene is introducing it and discussing how it might reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics, he starts to segue into reconciling aspects of string theory with itself — looping back (like its own subject strings) on itself in a perverse recursion full of mathematical adjustments and jargon. EXAMPLE: in the midst of discussing how this New Science, and where you expect it to loop back on the promised explanations for the Old Science, Greene veers off into a series of anecdotes about "this one time at Harvard..." and/or "once at Princeton we stayed up all night and..." — which really just seemed a little gratuitous.
By the time I realized what was happening, my attitude was already tainted. Perhaps I could have extracted more of the science if my cynicism hadn't kicked in so virulently and so early on in the reading. Perhaps spending more time with the end-notes will prove fruitful. Or perhaps on a future, subsequent follow-up reading I will discover that I was right the first time and we have 150 or so pages of incredible science writing and the remainder is chintzy vanity project[‡:].
RATED FOR HYPE: ★★★★★
RATED FOR STYLE: ★★★☆☆
RATED FOR SCIENCE: ★★☆☆☆
---
[*:] Let's hear it for faith-based science?
[†:] This is partly me being overly critical of Greene's (in my opinion) cavalier treatment of the Calabi-Yau concepts immediately following their introduction. There are some end-notes and citations for further reading, and he does attempt to dedicate some space in the main text to the idea — but his "dumbing down" of the Calabi-Yau manifolds to the "ant in the garden hose" analogy just doesn't really address it with sufficient vigor. Not after the incredible work he did in the earlier chapters re explaining relativity and quantum mechanics. I suppose I may have been more satisfied with something along the lines of "you have your time dimension, your three 'regular' space dimensions, and then these other six are really dedicated to providing reference points to describing the shape and vibration of the string IN THE THREE DIMENSIONS YOU ARE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH" — but no such explanation was there. If that's even really what he might have meant.
[‡:] Which I mean in the nicest possible way...? To be fair, Greene leaves plenty of room throughout the text to permit himself (and his colleagues studying superstring theory) to be "wrong". It reminds me of when Robert Wright hedges his bets in [b:The Moral Animal|681941|The Moral Animal Why We Are, the Way We Are The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology|Robert Wright|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1177105435s/681941.jpg|668334], saying that the evolutionary psychology approach (as championed by himself, Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Robert Trivers, and others) is a strong one that explains a whole lot but you better be careful before you go painting too broad of a stroke with those kinds of theories... Greene seems to do similar hedging, admitting that aspects of superstring theory seem tenuous (esp. when you consider how many "adjustments" they perform while "fine-tuning" a given aspect of the theory(s)) and that they (as scientists) are wise to temper their enthusiasm, to not lose sight of goals like "experimental verification". But then there's Greene's enthusiasm — which can easily electrify the reader but also just as easily undermine all of that careful hedging.
I close the covers of The Elegant Universe with powerfully mixed feelings. On the one hand, Brian Greene gives us a lucidly-written layman's-terms explanation for high-concept modern physics, providing an excellent survey of 20th century science and painting a vivid picture of a promising strategy for reconciling the discrepancies in the otherwise dominant theories. On the other hand, about half-way through the text, it devolves into (what feels like) a navel-gazing vanity project that fails to connect that promising strategy with the target audience (i.e., the layman that actually gives a damn about modern science).
To be clear: the first third of the book is a remarkable accomplishment. Brian Greene is a cogent writer with a wonderful pedagogical streak that is able to produce a clear image of some otherwise hard-to-decipher concepts in modern physics. Because of The Elegant Universe, I feel like I now have a fairly good understanding of the core concepts underlying Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics (e.g., Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). Greene is also able to give a decent explanation regarding how these theories break down when you try to "merge" them (e.g., like when you come up with "infinite energy" and/or "infinite mass" and/or "infinite probabilities" through calculations of black holes or the Big Bang).
This first third of the book is very accessible, very enjoyable, and very informative. Engaging, fascinating, and extremely powerful.
Somewhere during that potent 130-150 pages, Greene remarks (something to the effect of): You cannot be said to fully understand something until you can explain both its system and significance to a complete stranger. (Not a quote, but I'm sure you know what I'm getting at...)
And with that statement does Dr. Greene undermine the remaining two-thirds of the book. After introducing string theory, after explaining that it is a strategy with the potential to marry relativity and quantum mechanics, after getting you (the lay-reader) excited that you too will have some insight into the critical significance that is superstring theory — he glosses over some math (which doesn't really feel like physics after that first 120 pages) and more/less asks you to "bear with me here, trust me..." EXAMPLE: after introducing the concept of strings, the text rushes into a discussion of 6-dimensional "curled up" Calabi-Yau manifolds without really giving a good way of visualizing that whole mess[†:]. EXAMPLE: after 2 or 3 chapters about string theory where Greene is introducing it and discussing how it might reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics, he starts to segue into reconciling aspects of string theory with itself — looping back (like its own subject strings) on itself in a perverse recursion full of mathematical adjustments and jargon. EXAMPLE: in the midst of discussing how this New Science, and where you expect it to loop back on the promised explanations for the Old Science, Greene veers off into a series of anecdotes about "this one time at Harvard..." and/or "once at Princeton we stayed up all night and..." — which really just seemed a little gratuitous.
By the time I realized what was happening, my attitude was already tainted. Perhaps I could have extracted more of the science if my cynicism hadn't kicked in so virulently and so early on in the reading. Perhaps spending more time with the end-notes will prove fruitful. Or perhaps on a future, subsequent follow-up reading I will discover that I was right the first time and we have 150 or so pages of incredible science writing and the remainder is chintzy vanity project[‡:].
RATED FOR HYPE: ★★★★★
RATED FOR STYLE: ★★★☆☆
RATED FOR SCIENCE: ★★☆☆☆
---
[*:] Let's hear it for faith-based science?
[†:] This is partly me being overly critical of Greene's (in my opinion) cavalier treatment of the Calabi-Yau concepts immediately following their introduction. There are some end-notes and citations for further reading, and he does attempt to dedicate some space in the main text to the idea — but his "dumbing down" of the Calabi-Yau manifolds to the "ant in the garden hose" analogy just doesn't really address it with sufficient vigor. Not after the incredible work he did in the earlier chapters re explaining relativity and quantum mechanics. I suppose I may have been more satisfied with something along the lines of "you have your time dimension, your three 'regular' space dimensions, and then these other six are really dedicated to providing reference points to describing the shape and vibration of the string IN THE THREE DIMENSIONS YOU ARE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH" — but no such explanation was there. If that's even really what he might have meant.
[‡:] Which I mean in the nicest possible way...? To be fair, Greene leaves plenty of room throughout the text to permit himself (and his colleagues studying superstring theory) to be "wrong". It reminds me of when Robert Wright hedges his bets in [b:The Moral Animal|681941|The Moral Animal Why We Are, the Way We Are The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology|Robert Wright|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1177105435s/681941.jpg|668334], saying that the evolutionary psychology approach (as championed by himself, Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Robert Trivers, and others) is a strong one that explains a whole lot but you better be careful before you go painting too broad of a stroke with those kinds of theories... Greene seems to do similar hedging, admitting that aspects of superstring theory seem tenuous (esp. when you consider how many "adjustments" they perform while "fine-tuning" a given aspect of the theory(s)) and that they (as scientists) are wise to temper their enthusiasm, to not lose sight of goals like "experimental verification". But then there's Greene's enthusiasm — which can easily electrify the reader but also just as easily undermine all of that careful hedging.
This was a good and fairly accessible explanation of string theory. String theory arises from inherent conflicts between the theory of relativity, which is related to the force of gravity, and quantum mechanics, the science of the very small. The explanations of relativity and quantum mechanics at the beginning of the book were really good and helped me to solidify my understanding of these theories. Once this book dove into the details of string theory, i am less sure of my grasp of the material, but it was interesting and thought provoking, nonetheless. I'm glad i read this book.