Take a photo of a barcode or cover
277 reviews for:
El universo elegante: Supercuerdas, dimensiones ocultas y la búsqueda de una teoría final
Brian Greene
4.03 AVERAGE
277 reviews for:
El universo elegante: Supercuerdas, dimensiones ocultas y la búsqueda de una teoría final
Brian Greene
4.03 AVERAGE
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.
Good break down for those without a physics background
Excelente, no hay otro libro que te pueda explicar de una manera tan precisa lo que es la teoría de cuerdas.
If I die before we find out that string theory is right, I'm gonna be pissed.
Well written explanation of string theory, beginning with classical physics and theory of relativity and moving into quantum mechanics and then into string theory and how it can unite two theories and be the theory of everything (TOE). Greene does an excellent job using metaphor and analogy in explaining the theories, making string arguments while also consistently clarifying gaps in knowledge, and why those gaps exist. He also does an excellent job referring forward and backward in his book, noting places you could possibly skim, noting aspects he'll cover in more depth in later chapters, and generally making a strong clear case for how and why string theory is so exciting. While this was written in 2000, and is thus a bit dated, it nonetheless makes a solid foundational read, and is worth picking up in a used bookstore (as I did).
Since I often teach intro to science writing for college sophomores, including a lot of engineers (ie applied physics) as well as the mor occasional pure physics major (each of whom are always excited by string theory), there are some excellent examples if clear science writing, use of figures, use of hedging and qualifying verbs, and great narratives of the scientific process.
On a more personal note, I love to read books that explore and/or offer examples of how science and myth/literature/philosophy/faith/humanities seek out understanding in similar and complimentary ways. Despite the polarized presentation of religion being represented by the most fundamental and fringe groups, like the religious right's anti-science rhetoric, most religious people embrace science as science seeks Truth of our world through the pursuit of facts, and through the use of math and science, while literature, myth and faith excels in celebrating and imagining what science has yet to discover, and it excels in helping us make sense of new knowledge and how it informs and affects our humanity. There is not a conflict there. You can celebrate the Big Bang and the ideas of string theory while still feeling the religious awe of the interconnectedness of things, and while still believing in your God. It seems to me that science doesn't threaten God, it celebrates God, in however you understand God. Anyway, this is all a rambling way of saying that in the closing chapters of the book, as Greene is articulating the very edge if current inquiry, he does a good job of that conveying that awe.
He writes:
"Sometimes attaining the deepest familiarity with a question is our best substitute for actually having an answer." (365). -in this he is articulating exactly the place in which all seekers of understanding through writing, reading and/or faith dwell, we live in the questions.
Also, he wrote the following, beginning with a quote from Einstein, that "the years of anxious searching in the dark, with their intense longing, their alternations of confidence and exhaustion, and final emergence into the light," encompasses, surely, the whole human struggle. We are all, each in our own way, seekers of the truth, and we each long for an answer to why we are here. As we collectively scale the mountain of explanation, each generation stands firmly on the shoulder of the previous, bravely reaching for the peak." (387)
I'm not sure if I am making any clear point here, especially as I'm typing this all on my phone. I guess the crux is this: I am so grateful we have scientists pursuing knowledge and understanding of the world, just as I am also so glad I have book and poetry and some of the offerings of religion to help me seek out and understanding of what if is to be human. These things can exist in harmony, and in this book they do.
Since I often teach intro to science writing for college sophomores, including a lot of engineers (ie applied physics) as well as the mor occasional pure physics major (each of whom are always excited by string theory), there are some excellent examples if clear science writing, use of figures, use of hedging and qualifying verbs, and great narratives of the scientific process.
On a more personal note, I love to read books that explore and/or offer examples of how science and myth/literature/philosophy/faith/humanities seek out understanding in similar and complimentary ways. Despite the polarized presentation of religion being represented by the most fundamental and fringe groups, like the religious right's anti-science rhetoric, most religious people embrace science as science seeks Truth of our world through the pursuit of facts, and through the use of math and science, while literature, myth and faith excels in celebrating and imagining what science has yet to discover, and it excels in helping us make sense of new knowledge and how it informs and affects our humanity. There is not a conflict there. You can celebrate the Big Bang and the ideas of string theory while still feeling the religious awe of the interconnectedness of things, and while still believing in your God. It seems to me that science doesn't threaten God, it celebrates God, in however you understand God. Anyway, this is all a rambling way of saying that in the closing chapters of the book, as Greene is articulating the very edge if current inquiry, he does a good job of that conveying that awe.
He writes:
"Sometimes attaining the deepest familiarity with a question is our best substitute for actually having an answer." (365). -in this he is articulating exactly the place in which all seekers of understanding through writing, reading and/or faith dwell, we live in the questions.
Also, he wrote the following, beginning with a quote from Einstein, that "the years of anxious searching in the dark, with their intense longing, their alternations of confidence and exhaustion, and final emergence into the light," encompasses, surely, the whole human struggle. We are all, each in our own way, seekers of the truth, and we each long for an answer to why we are here. As we collectively scale the mountain of explanation, each generation stands firmly on the shoulder of the previous, bravely reaching for the peak." (387)
I'm not sure if I am making any clear point here, especially as I'm typing this all on my phone. I guess the crux is this: I am so grateful we have scientists pursuing knowledge and understanding of the world, just as I am also so glad I have book and poetry and some of the offerings of religion to help me seek out and understanding of what if is to be human. These things can exist in harmony, and in this book they do.
It's looking a bit like Greene and the other string theorists backed the wrong horse with string theory.
Therefore, this undeniably brilliantly-written book has dated badly.
Had luck been on their side, I'd probably give it 4 or 5 stars, but I can hardly recommend that anyone makes the commitment required to read a fairly heavy book on outdated science.
Therefore, this undeniably brilliantly-written book has dated badly.
Had luck been on their side, I'd probably give it 4 or 5 stars, but I can hardly recommend that anyone makes the commitment required to read a fairly heavy book on outdated science.
Although we are technologically bound to the earth and its immediate neighbors in the solar system, through the power of thought and experiment we have probed the far reaches of both inner and outer space. During the last hundred years in particular, the collective effort of numerous physicists has revealed some of nature's best-kept secrets. And once revealed, these explanatory gems have opened vistas on a world we thought we knew, but whose splendor we had not even come close to imagining. ... Wave functions, probabilities, quantum tunneling, the ceaseless roiling energy fluctuations of the vacuum, the smearing together of space and time, the relative nature of simultaneity, the warping of the spacetime fabric, black holes, the big bang. Who could have guessed that the intuitive, mechanical, clockwork Newtonian perspective would turn out to be so thoroughly parochial—that there was a whole new mind-boggling world lying just beneath the surface of things as they are ordinarily experienced?
What this book offers: good explanations of relativity, quantum mechanics, and the basics of string theory
What not to expect: to understand many details about string theory
This book starts out strong and seems to do a good job of conveying the motivations for and fundamentals of string theory. Somewhere in part 4 it becomes more difficult to follow; in particular, the author’s explanations of his own work are more effective at communicating the breathless excitement of physicists working on the subject, than at communicating anything more than a very general impression of the work itself.
But it still gets a lot of interesting stuff across. My favorite “mind-blown” moment is in chapter 10 on Quantum Geometry, where the author explains how string theory predicts a symmetry between expansion and contraction of space. In string theory, the nature and behavior of fundamental particles depends on the size of the dimensions of space; but once those dimensions contract to a certain minimum length, any further contraction leads to the same fundamental particles as if they were expanding, such that further contraction is indistinguishable from expansion. (A later chapter says this is a bit imprecise - more precisely, if I understand correctly, once you contract beyond a certain point in one variant of string theory, you get behavior that’s indistinguishable from expansion in a different variant of string theory.)
Quantum mechanics, relativity and string theory ... who knew they could keep me enthralled?
slow-paced