Take a photo of a barcode or cover
277 reviews for:
Piękno Wszechświata. Superstruny, ukryte wymiary i poszukiwanie teorii ostatecznej
Brian Greene
4.03 AVERAGE
277 reviews for:
Piękno Wszechświata. Superstruny, ukryte wymiary i poszukiwanie teorii ostatecznej
Brian Greene
4.03 AVERAGE
It was fascinating to think of how much research has progressed, and probably just as much since this book was published. There were times in the explanation where I was lost, but the idea mentioned come back later to give a more clear explanation after.
This is one of the coolest books I ever read, but ultimately it defeated me. It has absolutely the best description of relativity I've ever seen as far as ease of understanding, but when I got deep into the string theory sections, I was quickly out of my depth. That said, part of the reason I put it down was that it quickly became obvious that theory was unprovable, so I saw little value in continuing in that section. :/
Verdict? Buy it and read the first half for the brilliant general and special relativity section, but skip the second half!
Verdict? Buy it and read the first half for the brilliant general and special relativity section, but skip the second half!
This book was a disappointment. I've heard Brian Greene talk about physics on podcasts and seen little clips of him in documentaries. I thought this book would reflect the unique way he explains physics to make it widely accessible. This was mostly true at the very beginning of the book, but as soon as he got into quantum physics things got very dull. And really, quantum physics isn't dull. It's the opposite of dull. It's the craziest, wildest, most full of possibility stuff of nonfiction you could possibly hope for-- crazier even then fiction -- there are multiple universes! So it's disappointing that this book was dull.
That said, this clarified the rubber band (donut?) shape of strings to me as the smallest unit. And duality as applied to multiple string theories, to the extent that I understood it, was really interesting. We're on the precipice of of an incredible understanding of the universe.
Update: I've since read Brian Greene's [b:The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality|22435|The Fabric of the Cosmos Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality|Brian Greene|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1435242004s/22435.jpg|23464] and [b:The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos|8167094|The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos|Brian Greene|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1320431300s/8167094.jpg|13013056] and I love both of those books.
That said, this clarified the rubber band (donut?) shape of strings to me as the smallest unit. And duality as applied to multiple string theories, to the extent that I understood it, was really interesting. We're on the precipice of of an incredible understanding of the universe.
Update: I've since read Brian Greene's [b:The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality|22435|The Fabric of the Cosmos Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality|Brian Greene|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1435242004s/22435.jpg|23464] and [b:The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos|8167094|The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos|Brian Greene|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1320431300s/8167094.jpg|13013056] and I love both of those books.
Very heady stuff. As with most of Brian Greene's books, I'm usually good for the first two-thirds, and then I just kind of hang on as it starts to get very abstract and challenging. I'll most likely reread those last chapters again sometime.
Originally published on my blog here& in July 2000.
The Elegant Universe is not, as the title might suggest, an examination of the philosophical question of why so much of the operation of the physical universe can be described by relatively simple mathematics. Instead, it is a popular account of superstring theory, currently considered to be a major candidate for a cosmological "theory of everything". Strangely enough, from a mathematical point of view, the picture painted is far from elegant, string theory still being full of supposition, reasoning by analogy and with known problems. The elegance is in the approach; if it did provide, at the end of the day, a unified picture of quantum mechanics and general relativity, it could then be considered elegant in other senses.
The book starts, as many popular science books do, with a description of the origins and theory of general relativity, yet even here it scores over many similar volumes by finding descriptions and illustrations I at least had not seen before, and new details of well known pedagogic analogies such as the rubber sheet model of relativistic curved space.
The focus of the book is the string theory, and an admirable job is made of the task of conveying something of what this incredibly difficult mathematical discipline is about and why it is important, without using any mathematics - no equations at all. (It would probably be rather heavy going to someone who has not at least a reasonable familiarity with popular accounts of quantum mechanics, however.)
Greene is an enthusiast for string theory, and an optimist regarding both the completion of the theory and the description of the universe by the theory. These attributes stem, as does the authoritative nature of the narrative, from his position as an active researcher in the field. Some space is given to the arguments of sceptics, but not much. String theory is certainly a worthwhile area of research in mathematical physics, and probably the current best bet for a theory of everything. Objections mainly stem from the feeling that because of this work in the field tends to be overhyped, or amount to philosophical objections to the idea of an ultimate theory. In the first category falls the frequently made point that superstring research has produced little (if anything) in the way of experimentally verifiable prediction (Greene counters this by pointing to parts of the theory which he feels are close to doing so), or that much of the mathematics is fragmentary (since it is so difficult; only more work can fill in the gaps). The second category is barely touched on, though forming a major part of the discussion in such books as John Horgan's [b:The End of Science|250814|The End of Science Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age|John Horgan|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173143417s/250814.jpg|1384964] or John Barrow's [b:Impossibility|313955|Impossibility The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits|John D. Barrow|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173678477s/313955.jpg|2351760]. Philosophical speculation is by its very nature difficult to answer, and is was perhaps wise not to stray into this territory.
The Elegant Universe is a fascinating book, a clear account of one of the most complex parts of modern science. It is worth reading by anyone with an interest in the physical investigation of the fundamentals of the universe.
The Elegant Universe is not, as the title might suggest, an examination of the philosophical question of why so much of the operation of the physical universe can be described by relatively simple mathematics. Instead, it is a popular account of superstring theory, currently considered to be a major candidate for a cosmological "theory of everything". Strangely enough, from a mathematical point of view, the picture painted is far from elegant, string theory still being full of supposition, reasoning by analogy and with known problems. The elegance is in the approach; if it did provide, at the end of the day, a unified picture of quantum mechanics and general relativity, it could then be considered elegant in other senses.
The book starts, as many popular science books do, with a description of the origins and theory of general relativity, yet even here it scores over many similar volumes by finding descriptions and illustrations I at least had not seen before, and new details of well known pedagogic analogies such as the rubber sheet model of relativistic curved space.
The focus of the book is the string theory, and an admirable job is made of the task of conveying something of what this incredibly difficult mathematical discipline is about and why it is important, without using any mathematics - no equations at all. (It would probably be rather heavy going to someone who has not at least a reasonable familiarity with popular accounts of quantum mechanics, however.)
Greene is an enthusiast for string theory, and an optimist regarding both the completion of the theory and the description of the universe by the theory. These attributes stem, as does the authoritative nature of the narrative, from his position as an active researcher in the field. Some space is given to the arguments of sceptics, but not much. String theory is certainly a worthwhile area of research in mathematical physics, and probably the current best bet for a theory of everything. Objections mainly stem from the feeling that because of this work in the field tends to be overhyped, or amount to philosophical objections to the idea of an ultimate theory. In the first category falls the frequently made point that superstring research has produced little (if anything) in the way of experimentally verifiable prediction (Greene counters this by pointing to parts of the theory which he feels are close to doing so), or that much of the mathematics is fragmentary (since it is so difficult; only more work can fill in the gaps). The second category is barely touched on, though forming a major part of the discussion in such books as John Horgan's [b:The End of Science|250814|The End of Science Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age|John Horgan|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173143417s/250814.jpg|1384964] or John Barrow's [b:Impossibility|313955|Impossibility The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits|John D. Barrow|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173678477s/313955.jpg|2351760]. Philosophical speculation is by its very nature difficult to answer, and is was perhaps wise not to stray into this territory.
The Elegant Universe is a fascinating book, a clear account of one of the most complex parts of modern science. It is worth reading by anyone with an interest in the physical investigation of the fundamentals of the universe.
This makes a complicated subject very accessible to the non-specialist. My only complaint is that it talked a lot about the math involved, but didn't give any examples.
I tried but I don't really think I understood any of this book. I liked it though, so there you go.
String theory, M-theory, superstrings, supersymmetry— it’s some wild, wild stuff. As Niels Bohr said, and Brian Greene quotes, and I paraphrase: If you can think about quantum theory without feeling dizzy, you haven’t understood the first thing about it.
I thought I had at least a basic grasp of the basic concept of string theory, and that lasted about two pages into chapter one. Greene digs deep, but goes to great lengths to make the impossible subject comprehensible to anyone who hasn’t dedicated the past few decades of their life to the field. Some of the best parts are the stories that bring it down to earth, the first-hand glimpses behind the curtain; the trials of staying a step ahead of Witten, luring Aspinwall to break his code of work-free weekends for a six-pack of beer.
So while I doubt I understand much more than when I started, I understand much more of what it is I don’t understand. And it was a hell of a lot of fun.
I thought I had at least a basic grasp of the basic concept of string theory, and that lasted about two pages into chapter one. Greene digs deep, but goes to great lengths to make the impossible subject comprehensible to anyone who hasn’t dedicated the past few decades of their life to the field. Some of the best parts are the stories that bring it down to earth, the first-hand glimpses behind the curtain; the trials of staying a step ahead of Witten, luring Aspinwall to break his code of work-free weekends for a six-pack of beer.
So while I doubt I understand much more than when I started, I understand much more of what it is I don’t understand. And it was a hell of a lot of fun.
★★★★ (Really Good)
This was a fascinating book for several reasons. Even though I'm a big fan of physics, astronomy, and cosmology, somehow I was completely clueless about what exactly string theory is.
Considering, however, that string theory is one of the most complicated topics to date it would be silly of me to claim that I now *know* but I think I get it the same way I get how special and general relativity work. That is superficially but I get it.
This is the first book I read from Brian Greene and I have to admit that he's a great writer and populizer of knowledge. At the start of the book, he made a promise to not use any mathematical formulas throughout the book and he kept that promise. Furthermore, the book, surprisingly considering the topic, was a page-turner.
Overall, I definitely suggest it to people interested to know what string theory is about and why it is important. The book is old, however. It was published in 1999 so I don't know how many of the things written are still relevant today.
This was a fascinating book for several reasons. Even though I'm a big fan of physics, astronomy, and cosmology, somehow I was completely clueless about what exactly string theory is.
Considering, however, that string theory is one of the most complicated topics to date it would be silly of me to claim that I now *know* but I think I get it the same way I get how special and general relativity work. That is superficially but I get it.
This is the first book I read from Brian Greene and I have to admit that he's a great writer and populizer of knowledge. At the start of the book, he made a promise to not use any mathematical formulas throughout the book and he kept that promise. Furthermore, the book, surprisingly considering the topic, was a page-turner.
Overall, I definitely suggest it to people interested to know what string theory is about and why it is important. The book is old, however. It was published in 1999 so I don't know how many of the things written are still relevant today.