Cargando
Información sobre el libro
El gran diseño
Acciones del libro
Comenzar a leerDescripción
Aun antes de aparecer, este libro ha venido precedido, en todos los medios de comunicación, de una extraordinaria polémica sobre sus conclusiones: que tanto nuestro universo como los otros muchos universos posibles surgieron de la nada, porque su creación no requiere de la intervención de ningún Dios o ser sobrenatural, sino que todos los universos proceden naturalmente de las leyes físicas.
En efecto, este libro de Stephen Hawking y Leonard Mlodinow sobre los descubrimientos y los progresos técnicos más recientes nos presenta una nueva imagen del universo, y de nuestro lugar en él, muy distinta de la tradicional e, incluso, de la imagen que el propio Hawking nos había proporcionado, hace ya más de veinte años, en su gran libro Historia del tiempo. En él el gran físico nos explicaba de dónde procedía el universo y hacia dónde se encaminaba, pero aún no podía dar respuesta a importantes preguntas: ¿por qué existe el universo?, ¿por qué hay algo en lugar de nada?, ¿por qué existimos nosotros?, ¿necesita el universo un creador? En los últimos años, el desarrollo de la teoría “M” (en realidad toda una familia de teorías enlazadas sobre física cuántica) y las recientes observaciones realizadas por los satélites de la NASA, nos permiten ya enfrentarnos a la pregunta fundamental: la Cuestión Última de la Vida, el Universo y el Todo. Si esta teoría última es verificada por la observación científica, habremos culminado una búsqueda que se remonta a hace más de tres mil años: habremos hallado el Gran Diseño.
Acciones del libro
Comenzar a leerInformación sobre el libro
El gran diseño
Descripción
Aun antes de aparecer, este libro ha venido precedido, en todos los medios de comunicación, de una extraordinaria polémica sobre sus conclusiones: que tanto nuestro universo como los otros muchos universos posibles surgieron de la nada, porque su creación no requiere de la intervención de ningún Dios o ser sobrenatural, sino que todos los universos proceden naturalmente de las leyes físicas.
En efecto, este libro de Stephen Hawking y Leonard Mlodinow sobre los descubrimientos y los progresos técnicos más recientes nos presenta una nueva imagen del universo, y de nuestro lugar en él, muy distinta de la tradicional e, incluso, de la imagen que el propio Hawking nos había proporcionado, hace ya más de veinte años, en su gran libro Historia del tiempo. En él el gran físico nos explicaba de dónde procedía el universo y hacia dónde se encaminaba, pero aún no podía dar respuesta a importantes preguntas: ¿por qué existe el universo?, ¿por qué hay algo en lugar de nada?, ¿por qué existimos nosotros?, ¿necesita el universo un creador? En los últimos años, el desarrollo de la teoría “M” (en realidad toda una familia de teorías enlazadas sobre física cuántica) y las recientes observaciones realizadas por los satélites de la NASA, nos permiten ya enfrentarnos a la pregunta fundamental: la Cuestión Última de la Vida, el Universo y el Todo. Si esta teoría última es verificada por la observación científica, habremos culminado una búsqueda que se remonta a hace más de tres mil años: habremos hallado el Gran Diseño.
Acerca del autor
SH![]()
Reseñas
El libro trata de la física y las leyes naturales, y como estos dieron origen al universo y al ser humano
Rating: 4Deep, far-out concepts. Physics.
Rating: 3So I was in an airport with very little time to spare before my flight, but knowing I had hours of transit yet before I'd be home and I'd just run out of book. The only airport bookstore I found was tiny and the books on the shelvers were all titles I could only imagine reading under extreme duress (or, rather, wouldn't want to be seen reading unless under extreme duress -- I'm such a snob), and I was on my way out of the store, despairing of having anything to entertain myself but my own over-active and troublesome imagination, but especially no shield against strangers and the rest of the world, when I saw the name Stephen Hawking in big, stark letters and I knew I was saved.
Just for background, without the influence of Stephen Hawking, I might not have a master's degree in physics. Really. I count four main influences (other than my parents) in my choice of a physics degree. The other three were teachers/professors. A boy who was enamored of me once sent me a copy of A Brief History of Time. It was a really good gift. Probably the best gift I ever got from a boyfriend before I met my husband, who buys me bookshelves. (I just checked, because I couldn't remember, and the book wasn't inscribed. That boy was kind of an idiot.)
This is a book of grand ideas on the nature of the universe -- that tries to establish an understanding of the scientific theories on the most basic and fundamental questions underlying the universe. So, you know, big. From grand unified theories to the big bang to string theory, with multi-verses, alternate histories, and the probability of a Chinese pope along the way. It goes about explaining all this with humor, some fabulous illustrations, and Hawking's trademark straight-forwardness, which assures that "all of this is understandable."
That said, I had my usual complaint about this book that I have about all science books written for a lay audience. That is, my understanding is always deepened when I can see the math. It's just how my brain works. Most lay readers, however, are terrified of equations, so it will remain a problem for me. It only really bothered me in the section on Feynman's sum over histories -- something never really covered in any of my classes, but which I'd like to understand better. Time to get myself a textbook?
I would say there is no better place to look for a small, easy-to-understand (but intelligent!) book on the current scientific understanding of the history and structure of the universe, were it not for the recent (maybe) discovery of the Higgs boson -- there's not so much on elementary particles here. Still recommended, anyway.
Rating: 4Just for background, without the influence of Stephen Hawking, I might not have a master's degree in physics. Really. I count four main influences (other than my parents) in my choice of a physics degree. The other three were teachers/professors. A boy who was enamored of me once sent me a copy of A Brief History of Time. It was a really good gift. Probably the best gift I ever got from a boyfriend before I met my husband, who buys me bookshelves. (I just checked, because I couldn't remember, and the book wasn't inscribed. That boy was kind of an idiot.)
This is a book of grand ideas on the nature of the universe -- that tries to establish an understanding of the scientific theories on the most basic and fundamental questions underlying the universe. So, you know, big. From grand unified theories to the big bang to string theory, with multi-verses, alternate histories, and the probability of a Chinese pope along the way. It goes about explaining all this with humor, some fabulous illustrations, and Hawking's trademark straight-forwardness, which assures that "all of this is understandable."
That said, I had my usual complaint about this book that I have about all science books written for a lay audience. That is, my understanding is always deepened when I can see the math. It's just how my brain works. Most lay readers, however, are terrified of equations, so it will remain a problem for me. It only really bothered me in the section on Feynman's sum over histories -- something never really covered in any of my classes, but which I'd like to understand better. Time to get myself a textbook?
I would say there is no better place to look for a small, easy-to-understand (but intelligent!) book on the current scientific understanding of the history and structure of the universe, were it not for the recent (maybe) discovery of the Higgs boson -- there's not so much on elementary particles here. Still recommended, anyway.
Another great book by Hawking. Once again Hawking is able to bring the the the common man the grandest theories in physics so that they are able to understand.
Rating: 4This is a book about M-theory which is a possible "grand unified theory" for physics. It goes through various physics models over time leading up to the discussion of M-theory. Even for me, someone who has a PhD in engineering, this book is a bit hard to follow at times. Although, that may be because I listened to it in audio. I thought the discussion about M-theory and it's implications was very interesting, though. Just know what you're getting going into this.
Rating: 3Forgettable to the point that if I hadn't written it down in my book ledger I wouldn't even know I read it. I had to look at the book description to spark my memories. Essentially, this is about the forces that rule the universe and the quests to create a grand unifying theory of everything. It only gave the slightest depth to each concept and really wasn't half as good as the Brief History of the Universe books.
Rating: 3Too light-weight; I was able to read this in a few hours total. I was hoping for something more... detailed, I guess. I realize the math is beyond any mere dilettante, but this book was *very* high level.
Rating: 3Stephen W. Hawking is a brilliant scientist and a great writer.You do not need to be an scientist to understand this book.The book is is well written, clear and comprehensive.This book makes me want to study physics.It was a fascinating read.
Rating: 5Nice, easy read...certainly not nearly as controversial as the press made it out to be when it was published. Hawking and Mlodinow get bashed for oversimplifying, but I think that translating cosmology to be accessible to the masses is admirable. If you want more math or science, those books are out there. If you want a general overview that you can lend your friends, this serves well.
I like their reference to David Hume, silencing the "but how do we know what is real?" waste of time crowd: although we have no rational grounds for believing in an objective reality, we also have no choice but to act as if it is true.
We really don't have much choice but to act as if what we perceive is real...we are macroscopic beings and travel at far less than relativistic speeds, so the classic equations govern.
Rating: 4I like their reference to David Hume, silencing the "but how do we know what is real?" waste of time crowd: although we have no rational grounds for believing in an objective reality, we also have no choice but to act as if it is true.
We really don't have much choice but to act as if what we perceive is real...we are macroscopic beings and travel at far less than relativistic speeds, so the classic equations govern.
A lot of circular logic and simplistic language really made me feel Mr. Hawking just doesn't think his readers are smart enough to understand.
Rating: 3In the first few chapters, I had this amazing feeling that I just might be able to understand it all. This dissipated in the later chapters, as physics well beyond my severely limited knowledge was explored...yet it was fascinating and engaging even to this layperson. Explores the interesting nexus of the creation and implementation of scientific models (science has long ago left behind the "you have to see it to believe it" attitude) and how one creates meaning from such models.
Rating: 4This books goes to my virtual list: "Books I wish I had read before I started studying my Physics Degree", so far only some books from MIR Publisher had done it to this list. It is simply superb, they way Hawking introduces some of the most complex concepts of Physics is amazing. Anyway this book is definitely NOT for the intermediate science lover, you will need some background or lots of patience, but still in hardly 200 pages Hawking and Mlodinow present very clearly the sate of the art of Physics and Science in one of its last frontiers. Great great book.
Rating: 5Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow describe our current understanding of physics - general and special relativity, gravity, quantum theory, Feynman's sum over histories - in a relatively brief (under 200 pages) and accessible way for the layman, using tons of visuals and often humorous analogies.I never took high school physics or calculus so while I can't understand the math, I occasionally read science books intended for folks like me that simply blow my mind with what we know and don't know about the universe we live in. The first half of the book was pretty basic and covered ground I already knew from other books I've read. Much of the book describes what we know of "the grand design" of the universe, both arguing for a theory or network of theories ("M-theory") that will one day better describe our universe and that we could mathematically and scientifically come up with a theory that will not have a need for a designer, that is God. Their theory, from what I understand - and this was the part that got a little dicey for me, I admit - argues that much like the earth is not the center of the universe nor even a particularly unique planet orbiting a star, so our universe may end up being only one of millions upon millions of universes that would all be spontaneously created and simultaneously operate with different laws of nature. I'm not sure that would ever personally satisfy me with how something could come from nothing - and as I said, I'm not conversant in the math that models this - but I enjoy stretching my brain cells nonetheless.
Rating: 4An accessible survey of the present state of the universe. A must.
Rating: 5Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time reportedly was one of the most purchased, most displayed, and least read scientific books of the late 1980s. Although the book contained no mathematics and minimal technical vocabulary, many readers found its concepts difficult to comprehend. (In fact, none other than a spokesman for the Pope mistakenly proclaimed that it demonstrated the necessity for a belief in God as the divine entity that began the universe). The Grand Design succeeds where that book arguably did not, and what's more, brings to a general readership the stunning implications of contemporary physics and cosmology. The book is clearly written, contains helpful diagrams, and enough corny humor to keep things light. Any difficulties in comprehension reflect the fact that the concepts themselves are counter-intuitive and far from easy to grasp. The universe turns out to be a very strange place indeed; and in fact, if the authors are correct, ours is but one of an infinite number of universes, in which every conceivable event has happened. Given that The Grand Design removes the necessity for a divine creator, one may feel compelled to ask: what percentage of the infinite number of universes would include a god or gods? And then, an unrelated question. With an infinite number of universes (many of which apparently lasted no more than a few seconds), do we not have a process of natural selection operating on a cosmic scale, such that our universe exists because it has succeeded where others have failed? Wouldn't it be both funny and ironic if our universe's persistence for the past 13.7 billion years (just like our presence on this small planet in a tiny solar system) reflects a form of cosmic evolution and natural selection? The Grand Design is a book that raises as many questions as it answers. It is a book that deserves to be read and understood, and if its radical implications take a while to sink in, we can take heart in the likelihood that our particular universe seems unlikely to disappear anytime soon. So far, at least, we're one of the lucky ones.
Rating: 4Yuck. I loved Hawking's 'Brief History of Time', but I found this one thin (content-wise) and inconclusive. To call it the Grand Design, and then simply present work that says "there's lots of theories that all together form a cool picture" is disappointing. I realize I'm probably not the audience for this book, as I've read a LOT of popular science books, and I love this stuff, so maybe I should relax into this.If you've never read Hawking, or you don't have other pop physics books on your shelf, this would be a good read.
Rating: 3A concise and fairly well-written summary of the current state of the search for a concise theory of everything. Hawking does a good job during the first 2/3 of the book walking the reader along the path of complex theories and providing well-written examples. However, I felt like during the last 1/3 of the book, where he was getting to the crux of his exposition, that he got tired of writing and just wanted to finish it up so he stopped trying to make things understandable. All-in-all a decent book to get someone started on the path of the grand theories of the universe.
Rating: 4Interesting mixture of science and conjecture. Frankly, I came away a bit disappointed. Maybe I have read too many similar books. It did not seem to offer anything particularly new.
Rating: 2A relatively good read that summarizes the current thinking on the creation of the universe and its future. Reasonably well written with occasional snippets of ineffectual humor and a smattering of anti-Christian/anti-religion bias. Case in point: Chapter 7, The Apparent Miracle, goes to great length describing the high improbability of life, right down to the improbability of the formation of carbon in the early moments of the Big Bang, to the very early universe exceeding the speed of light, and then to the unlikely juxtaposition of the Earth to just the right star and so on and so forth. Then ends it with a very non-scientific “but it just happened.” Really? My own belief does not center around the M theory but rather the Grand Overriding Dynamic, or GOD. Don’t understand the improbabilities? GOD did it. Not a bad read but no recommendation. Spend your money elsewhere.
Rating: 3Book was too short, could have used much more info. Very interesting nonetheless, got me thinking about my masters again
Rating: 3As a layperson, this book was incredibly interesting and relatively easy to comprehend and follow. However, the lay reader will benefit from multiple readings of the book; or, in the very least, select portions of the text. The hardcover edition is incredibly nice, with dozens of glossy images. The images help to communicate the ideas pitched in the book. I will revisit this book in the future.
Rating: 4The clearest summary of Hawking's current thinking that I have yet encountered. Whilst I miss some of the detail presented in, for example, A Brief History of Time, this book is a more concise summary which covers a little more of the M-Theory material (without ever, quite, explaining what M-Theory is - but this is true of all summaries I have so far encountered). Lavishly illustrated, and with his usual dry humour, this book is highly readable and also raises some interesting questions. Well worth a read.
Rating: 4The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow mostly succeeds at being accessible to the average reader given the academic subject matter. Still, it was hard to wrap my mind around some of the concepts. The examples were clear, but like physics itself, understanding them often required thinking in multiple dimensions.This book, as others like it, is a welcomed continual plea to bring scientific thinking to the greater public. The world surprisingly still leans heavily on superstition in trying to make sense of this mysterious space called the universe.
Rating: 4This is one of those books general readers use to give themselves a glimpse of how great minds perceive reality. It's not too long, has humor and easy-to-understand illustrations, and creeps closer and closer to the author's conclusion so gently that as each chapter ends you realize you may not understand the science all that well, but the argument makes sense, at least within it's own logic, and you can actually follow the line of thought. Here Hawking explains his reasoning for promoting M-theory as a candidate for the "Theory of Everything". Using a lucid history of scientific theory, he traces the work of Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman and others to lead readers out of their familiar paths of understanding and into theories which to our senses seem impossible. Even as readers might be thinking, OK, I've lost the thread, Hawking changes tactics enough to let the reader pause and be ready to go on with just enough comprehension to keep up. It's quite a feat, I think, for him to be able to know what mere mortals (and I'm not being sarcastic here) can tolerate and understand in order for him to not only give us some idea what he's talking about but to get us to trust that it's worth continuing to read.
Rating: 4The book attempts to explain what scientists think are the laws of universe, and in particular what the M theory is. The M theory is an attempt at a theory of 'everything' meaning a theory fit to unify laws governing both subatomic particles, energy fields and big bodies, so far an unattainable feat for physicists. It's based on superstring theory and unifies quantum mechanics, general and special theory of relativity, and supports the view that our universe is a part of multiverse- an infinite collection of universes like ours. The book itself is extremely readable, clear and to the point peppered with Hawking signature quirky humour. It has an very clear explanation of quantum mechanics laws and why god is not needed in the creation of the universe.
Rating: 5In which we meet yet another first-class scientist who wishes to self-identify as a second-class philosopher and a comedian from the back end of steerage.Since few will buy A Grand Design for its wit we can forgive Stephen Hawking's appalling attempts to be funny, but it's not so easy to forgive his philosophical ignorance. Certain physical scientists might be better off unacquainted with the modern philosophy of science (though those who know it possess a welcome sense of perspective and humility). But not world-renowned cosmologists. Their field continually bumps up against the boundary of what science even is (and it doesn't have a "no-boundary condition", whatever that might be).So when Stephen Hawking claims that "philosophy has not kept up with modern science, especially physics" it suggests not only a lack of perspective and humility, but that Hawking has been skipping on some required reading. Especially since, having written off the discipline, Hawking seems barely acquainted with it. He mentions few philosophers more recent than Rene Descartes (d. 1650). So it is hard to know who he thinks hasn't kept up.Particularly when Hawking's first grand pronouncement is "model-dependent reality": the idea that there may be alternative ways to model the same physical situation with fundamentally different elements and concepts. "If [such different models] accurately predict the same events, one cannot be said to be more real than the other." Physics has, apparently, been forced into this gambit following recent failures to get unifying calculations to work themselves out. In any case it isn't quite the neat trick Hawking thinks it is.Firstly, while model-dependent reality might be news to Stephen Hawking (he seems to think it the fruit of modern physics' womb) the philosophers he hasn't been reading have been talking about it for years, if not centuries, to the constant sound of scientists' excoriations. It is even part of Descartes' philosophical fabric (and, more tellingly, Darwin's , but picking a fight with modern evolutionists, while fun, is a story for another day). That is to say, it sounds like it is the physicists who are finally catching up with the philosophers and not the other way around.Secondly, in the grand game of philosophers' football that Cosmology has become, the model-dependent reality play is something of a surrender before kick-off. For if it is true that the same phenomenon can be plausibly accounted for in multiple, "incommensurate" (© Thomas Kuhn) ways, then the hard question is not about the truth in itself of any model, but the criteria for determining which of the (potentially infinite) models available we should choose in the first place.This question is not one for physics, but metaphysics. It necessarily exists outside any given model (© Paul Feyerabend). Here we meet our old friend, Occam's Razor. This isn't a scientific principle at all, but a pragmatic rule of thumb with no intellectual pedigree: all else being equal, take the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor is a favourite instrument for the torture of hapless Christians by grumpy biologists: all your tricksy afterlife wagers and so on fail because evolution is so much less complicated and has so much more explanatory value than the idea that an omniscient, intangible, invisible, omnipotent entity pulling strings we can't see to make the whole thing go.But, alas, in seeking a grand unification of things that really aren't asking to be unified, cosmology reveals some almighty snags. Unification under Hawking's programme, if it is even possible, involves slaughtering some big old sacred cows. To name a few: causality, the conventional conception of space-time; the idea that scientific theories should be based on observable data and their outcomes testable. It bows to some truly heinous false idols too. For example: seven invisible space-time dimensions, a huge mass of invisible dark matter, an arbitrary cosmological constant, a potentially infinite array of unobservable universes which wink in and out of existence courtesy of a mathematically inferred "vacuum energy"). Hawking doesn't propose solutions to these problems, but seems to think they're a fair price for achieving grand unification.I'm not so sure: other than intellectual bragging rights, the resulting unified theory has no obvious marginal utility. And it has political drawbacks: believing one's model to be the truth carries potentially unpleasant implications for the suppression of those who don't.There are practical drawbacks, too. We are asked to reject existing theories, which still have quite a lot of utility, in favour of something that it infinitely harder to understand and work with. The accelerating expansion of the universe without any apparent acting force seems to violate Newton's second law of motion. Without an outrageous end-run, the first nanosecond of the Big Bang (wherein the universe is obliged to expand in size by ten squillion kilometres - i.e. far faster than the speed of light) seems to violate the fundamentals of general relativity. String theory requires seven necessarily unobservable space-time dimensions and/or entirely different universes, and even then doesn't yield a single theory but millions of the blighters, all slightly inconsistent with each other (hence the appeal to "model dependent reality).From the camp which wielded Occam's Razor so heartily against the Christians, this seems a bit rich. If these are the options, then the razor might slice in favour of the big guy with the beard.But these aren't the options. We could save a lot of angst, and perhaps could have avoided digging trillion dollar circular tunnel under Geneva, had we employed model dependent reality the way the philosophers saw it and not the scientists (and shouldn't we call a spade a spade and label it cognitive relativism, by the way?). Since it crossed the event horizon of observability modern cosmology has become arcane, stunt-mathematics. If there were a chance that it might deliver time-travel, hyperspace or a tool for locating wormholes to other galaxies or universes then one could see the point in this intellectual onanism. But none of that seems to be allowed. So we should therefore ask the question "but why? What's the point? What progress do you promise that we can't achieve some other way?" No one seems to be able to answer that question.But if we park it, what's left of Stephen Hawking's latest book is some pretty ropey jokes.
Rating: 2I read this immediately after reading The Universe in a Nutshell (2001). I read Black Holes and Baby Universes a few years ago. I have read Brian Greene's works, so felt rather up-to-date on where quantum physics was at. I found this book to be more accessible than Greene's work, and a more interesting read than Nutshell since Hawking is contemplating theoretical physics' meaning for philosophy. That philosophical bent is a real problem for physics since the scientific method, which Hawking holds favorably in The Grand Design, requires hypothesis testing. For more on these problems, and a large criticism of Hawking I plan to read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics.
The author begins by stating that philosophy has not kept up with science, particularly modern physics. Hawking gives a brief history of science with an emphasis on physics and a look at how philosophy looking at science developed from Aristotle (rejected atoms b/c soulless) to Descartes (believed that the body was machine governed by laws, but the soul was not) to Newton (discovered many laws of the universe but held that God was free to intervene against them).
If there are natural laws, can/does God violate them to perform miracles? That's an important question, as is the question of free will and determinism. Where does free will come from? If physicists nail down a Theory of Everything, will everything be deterministic henceforth?
Hawking writes the laws of (this) universe arose from the big bang, and lengthily establishes what those laws are. But the universe has an infinite number of histories and contingencies. Wrap your head around this:
"the probability amplitude that the universe is now in a particular state is arrived at by adding up the contributions from all the histories that satisfy the no-boundary condition and end in the state in question. In cosmology, in other words, one shouldn't follow the history of the universe from the bottom up because that assumes there's a single history, with a well-defined starting point and evolution. Instead, one should trace the histories from the top down, backward from the present time...The histories that contribute to the Feynman sum don't have an independent existence, but depend on what is being measured. We create history by our observation, rather than our history creating us...histories in which the moon is made of cheese do not contribute to the present state of our universe, though they might contribute to others. That might sound like science fiction, but it isn't."
Hawking explains M-theory, p-branes, and other developments in quantum physics. The last pages of the book are the most important as Hawking contends that M theory explains how a universe can arise from nothing. But it does not lead to determinism in the sense that it would be mathematically impossible to calculate the movements of any one being. So, a theory of everything that is not what Hawking desired to find in Black Holes and Baby Universes.
This book seems much more consequential than Nutshell. I found it more entertaining and thought-provoking throughout. I would very much like to read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics, a critique of Hawking's work. For now, 4 stars out of 5
Rating: 4The author begins by stating that philosophy has not kept up with science, particularly modern physics. Hawking gives a brief history of science with an emphasis on physics and a look at how philosophy looking at science developed from Aristotle (rejected atoms b/c soulless) to Descartes (believed that the body was machine governed by laws, but the soul was not) to Newton (discovered many laws of the universe but held that God was free to intervene against them).
If there are natural laws, can/does God violate them to perform miracles? That's an important question, as is the question of free will and determinism. Where does free will come from? If physicists nail down a Theory of Everything, will everything be deterministic henceforth?
Hawking writes the laws of (this) universe arose from the big bang, and lengthily establishes what those laws are. But the universe has an infinite number of histories and contingencies. Wrap your head around this:
"the probability amplitude that the universe is now in a particular state is arrived at by adding up the contributions from all the histories that satisfy the no-boundary condition and end in the state in question. In cosmology, in other words, one shouldn't follow the history of the universe from the bottom up because that assumes there's a single history, with a well-defined starting point and evolution. Instead, one should trace the histories from the top down, backward from the present time...The histories that contribute to the Feynman sum don't have an independent existence, but depend on what is being measured. We create history by our observation, rather than our history creating us...histories in which the moon is made of cheese do not contribute to the present state of our universe, though they might contribute to others. That might sound like science fiction, but it isn't."
Hawking explains M-theory, p-branes, and other developments in quantum physics. The last pages of the book are the most important as Hawking contends that M theory explains how a universe can arise from nothing. But it does not lead to determinism in the sense that it would be mathematically impossible to calculate the movements of any one being. So, a theory of everything that is not what Hawking desired to find in Black Holes and Baby Universes.
This book seems much more consequential than Nutshell. I found it more entertaining and thought-provoking throughout. I would very much like to read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics, a critique of Hawking's work. For now, 4 stars out of 5
I keep reading books like this in the hopes that one day I will grasp the subject, but so far, no such luck. (I get bits and pieces, but I can't picture folded-up space, or separated particles with apparent ESP, etc.)
I liked the explanation of how models are essentially reality (unless I misunderstood that), but I wished that they had discussed less (I started to tune out / get dizzy by 2/3 through) but had gone into greater detail about what they were discussing.
For instance, I'm quite keen on the idea of multiple universes, but can there really be an infinity of them, can every possible universe possibly exist? It doesn't seem logical. I mean, imagine a world that's identical to ours, except in our world Hamilton wasn't a big success. But how could that be? If everything were identical, then all the people who see Hamilton would be the same ones in both worlds, with the same likes and dislikes, so they'd, on the whole, really like it. If they didn't, then something must have differed prior to that. Or in a simpler case, there's no universe that's just like ours but where elephants if they choose to can float. Can there be? I really don't get it.
Oh well. Back to philosophy maybe, as physics and I, no matter how hard I try, are not a good fit!
(Note: 5 stars = rare and amazing, 4 = quite good book, 3 = a decent read, 2 = disappointing, 1 = awful, just awful. There are a lot of 4s and 3s in the world!)
Rating: 3I liked the explanation of how models are essentially reality (unless I misunderstood that), but I wished that they had discussed less (I started to tune out / get dizzy by 2/3 through) but had gone into greater detail about what they were discussing.
For instance, I'm quite keen on the idea of multiple universes, but can there really be an infinity of them, can every possible universe possibly exist? It doesn't seem logical. I mean, imagine a world that's identical to ours, except in our world Hamilton wasn't a big success. But how could that be? If everything were identical, then all the people who see Hamilton would be the same ones in both worlds, with the same likes and dislikes, so they'd, on the whole, really like it. If they didn't, then something must have differed prior to that. Or in a simpler case, there's no universe that's just like ours but where elephants if they choose to can float. Can there be? I really don't get it.
Oh well. Back to philosophy maybe, as physics and I, no matter how hard I try, are not a good fit!
(Note: 5 stars = rare and amazing, 4 = quite good book, 3 = a decent read, 2 = disappointing, 1 = awful, just awful. There are a lot of 4s and 3s in the world!)
(Original Review, 2010)At university, after spending thousands on tuition, I then had to spend a lot, over 3 years, on books for my courses. More than half were written by the very professors that were teaching me. Quite frankly, it's a giant scam. Those professors have already been paid for the first material through their salaries. Why should we have to pay them again for copies of their pretty badly written books? Yes, these books are very expensive, and many don't deserve to be read. A few years ago, I was asked to review a chapter in a research text. The friend who sent me the invite told me over a drink that I was the third person asked, and would I please go easy on the papers. I said yes. I'd do it (slow week and was curious). I wasn't prepared for just how poor the section was. Even simple things, such as the chapter discussing at great length a diagram that wasn't included in the manuscript. So, after going easy, I sent two pages of corrections stating they must be made or the chapter was not suitable for publication. After a couple of months I received an email asking for my address so they could send me a thank you copy. No mention of any edits being made. Still not received a copy of the book...It doesn't matter if it gets bought, as long as you have your name as an author next to a proper ISBN number then you are a published author and with your PhD can get in for the university interviews...along with your list of peer reviewed journal articles too of course...Surely the point of being an academic is to be published well, stocked in university libraries, cited by students and fellow academics, and of course be paid for it. Not everyone can be Leonard Mlodinow (whose screen work is quite different to his academic work).Bottom-line: Is hysterical publication caused by an epidemic of vanity? Don't be ridiculous. It is how the institutions that employ us measure our performance and the penalties for non-performance are severe. This is the only reason these publishers can do what they do. All over the world thousands of talented academics are wasting their time writing for non-existent readers: it is completely insane.
Rating: 1This book was nothing like the hype it brought. I enjoyed the book, but as a whole the best parts were the first couple of chapters and the last couple of chapters.
Rating: 3