prond's review against another edition
5.0
Современная наука настолько глубоко погрузилась в своих теориях в основы мироздания, что не надо никакой научной фантастики. К примеру, так как ученые не могут понять что из себя представляет пространство-время, то они решили, что это понятие не фундаментальное и теперь гадают из каких таких фундаментальных частиц это все может состоять. Теория струн предполагает наличие некой подложки(брана) к которым эти струны прикреплены. Сами струны, колеблясь, создают пространство-время. Но вот эти самые браны, они как то сложноваты для фундаментальных структур, а значит тоже состоят из-чего, может быть тех же струн, но струны тоже подозрительные, надо бы придумать из чего такого они состоят.
Всякие очевидные мелочи, типа бессмертных фотонов, движущихся со скоростью света даже и не стоят упоминания.
Всякие очевидные мелочи, типа бессмертных фотонов, движущихся со скоростью света даже и не стоят упоминания.
inthelunaseas's review
3.0
Did Greene plagiarise a section of his book? More on that later.
Oh, god, I'm surprised I finished it. For the most part, I enjoy theoretical physics. I'm not sure if I believe everything that theoretical physics proposes (but then again, I'm not one for blindly allowing myself to be pulled along by an entity I can't see), but I enjoy it nonetheless. And I wanted to enjoy this book, I really did. Greene offers some thought provoking ideas, and he even mentions at one point the author of one of my favourite theoretical physics books,[a:Lisa Randall|38333|Lisa Randall|http://www.goodreads.com/images/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg].
Unfortunately, Greene is unable to translate all his ideas into legible text. I was able to understand some of what he was saying, but after a while, my eyes started to glaze over and I was left puzzling my own existence. Greene tends to throw ideas out there (such as cracked eggs becoming whole again, or ice forming in a glass of warm water and then melting once more) without giving a warning, that leaves the reader wondering if perhaps Greene has lost his marbles in the search for truth. Furthermore, and this may be more a publisher's error, but the book promised discussion on black holes and the like- my favourite of all astronomical topics. However, black holes are only mentioned in depth in the last twenty odd pages. However, there was a chapter on time travel, wormholes and alternate universes, but that was only a short chapter in of itself.
There was one segment I did catch that made me sit up and laugh. I only would have caught it because I read [b:Flash Forward|337132|Flashforward|Robert J. Sawyer|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173853613s/337132.jpg|327550] by [a:Richard J. Sawyer|109116|Algis Budrys|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1247757363p2/109116.jpg] shortly before this book. Greene and Sawyer both use the same analogy of Gone With the Wind as a way of describing looking through time, in exactly the same manner. Seeing as Sawyer wrote his novel first (back in 1999) and The Fabric of the Cosmos was written in 2004, I can only suspect that Greene was, er, inspired if you will to use it. Still, I'm sure Sawyer would appreciate the credit.
Oh, god, I'm surprised I finished it. For the most part, I enjoy theoretical physics. I'm not sure if I believe everything that theoretical physics proposes (but then again, I'm not one for blindly allowing myself to be pulled along by an entity I can't see), but I enjoy it nonetheless. And I wanted to enjoy this book, I really did. Greene offers some thought provoking ideas, and he even mentions at one point the author of one of my favourite theoretical physics books,[a:Lisa Randall|38333|Lisa Randall|http://www.goodreads.com/images/nophoto/nophoto-U-50x66.jpg].
Unfortunately, Greene is unable to translate all his ideas into legible text. I was able to understand some of what he was saying, but after a while, my eyes started to glaze over and I was left puzzling my own existence. Greene tends to throw ideas out there (such as cracked eggs becoming whole again, or ice forming in a glass of warm water and then melting once more) without giving a warning, that leaves the reader wondering if perhaps Greene has lost his marbles in the search for truth. Furthermore, and this may be more a publisher's error, but the book promised discussion on black holes and the like- my favourite of all astronomical topics. However, black holes are only mentioned in depth in the last twenty odd pages. However, there was a chapter on time travel, wormholes and alternate universes, but that was only a short chapter in of itself.
There was one segment I did catch that made me sit up and laugh. I only would have caught it because I read [b:Flash Forward|337132|Flashforward|Robert J. Sawyer|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173853613s/337132.jpg|327550] by [a:Richard J. Sawyer|109116|Algis Budrys|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1247757363p2/109116.jpg] shortly before this book. Greene and Sawyer both use the same analogy of Gone With the Wind as a way of describing looking through time, in exactly the same manner. Seeing as Sawyer wrote his novel first (back in 1999) and The Fabric of the Cosmos was written in 2004, I can only suspect that Greene was, er, inspired if you will to use it. Still, I'm sure Sawyer would appreciate the credit.
gef's review against another edition
5.0
The recent discovery of what may be the Higgs boson made me aware again of how little I understand about the universe. Or even about the questions now being posed by cosmologists. Greene makes it all about as clear as it can possibly be to someone — like me — who can't follow the math. For those who can follow it, he offers many of the necessary equations in the endnotes, which also include numerous references for further reading. To substitute for the math, Greene uses metaphors, generally pretty silly ones — Bart Simpson on a supersonic skateboard, for example — that at least give us an idea of, for example, what Einstein meant about space-time in the general theory of relativity. And then beyond Einstein, to quantum mechanics, and why the world and the whole universe appear to us in only three space dimensions (forward and back, side to side, up and down) and one time dimension, when quantum theory, confirmed experimentally, demonstrates that there must be ten space dimensions (but still only one time dimension). Is our universe really a kind of hologram projected by forces outside it, that is, beyond the universe we are capable of perceiving directly? Could be; Greene considers that hypothesis as at least plausible. And how did it all, everything, begin? Or did it? Was the Big Bang, the initial expansion of matter and energy that set everything in motion, just a new configuration of energy that is always, and that therefore may have been dispersed in some other entropic system(s), and may again — if our universe ever reaches the limit of its continuing expansion — shrink to extreme density, preparatory to a new explosion ("Big Bang") some billions of years hence? It took me weeks to get through this book, not because it was unclear, but because the news about the universe seemed so strange, so oddly contrary to our ordinary experience, that I had to keep checking back to re-understand parts of earlier chapters necessary for following the later ones. I remain amazed, and inspired with new speculations about philosophy and existence and what we do and cannot know. Guess it's time for me to learn some math.
raviwarrier's review against another edition
3.0
I guess this one was one of Brian Greene's not-so-simple-books. The book definitely delves deep into nuances of quantum and astro-physics, explaining in detail various advances in thoughts, experiments and beliefs of the contemporary physicists.
However, this book is not for people who are new to the subject of science, especially physics. If you are s/he, then I suggest you start easy.
The book is thrilling and interesting otherwise. And will keep you peeking at pages to uncover the mysteries of this universe (and others).
However, this book is not for people who are new to the subject of science, especially physics. If you are s/he, then I suggest you start easy.
The book is thrilling and interesting otherwise. And will keep you peeking at pages to uncover the mysteries of this universe (and others).
stevex's review against another edition
4.0
Finally finished this vast book. Learning #1, don't read mammoth complex technical books on the Kindle - this is one book that would really benefit from being able to flip backwards & forwards easily, both within the immediate text and to the vast quantity of notes. Learning #2, don't read technical books with lots of complex diagrams on the Kindle, because they are rendered as tiny, grey blurs, and about 50% of them are unintelligible as a result.
OK, so enough whingeing about the Kindle edition, how was the book? Well, it's almost 3 books in 1. The first part, comprising the first 30% or so of the book, was a real chore to read - partly because I think I've reached the point of diminishing returns on cosmology books, partly because it's so verbose and frankly dull. Greene really does beat some of the subjects to death, using far too many analogies for subjects which were easier to understand in the physics than the Simpsons examples.
Just at the point when I was starting to give up on the book, it slides into the 2nd section which was far more interesting - once he got onto Higgs fields and the like, it was far more entertaining; partly, in fairness, because most of this was new to me, and partly because is seemed a lot better written than the first part. (Though the jumping frog analogy wore pretty thin after a while).
Whereas the first two sections are dense blocks of prose, the 3rd section is almost McCosmos in comparison - many different topics covered off in a few pages each. Interesting enough, but felt as though they belonged in a different book, or that they were the notes which would eventually be rewritten into a 3rd part of the book in the same style as the first 2 parts.
After this, there's a huge mass of notes, which were pretty unusable in the Kindle edition because of the difficulty of referring between them and the text.
So - pretty good book in many ways, with some really detailed coverage. If you aren't a physics researcher, this is probably as much (or more) quantum string cosmological mind-bending as you will ever need to read, but I'm a bit hesitant about recommending it, as it's a pretty major slog in places to get through some of the turgid prose. In the end, the probabalistic wavefunction of my quantum superposition collapsed to a recommended state after fluctuating between ticked and non-ticked, but I would heartily recommend getting the physical book over the Kindle version for this one. Much as I love my Kindle, this was hard work to read that way. And finally, learning #3, this is a book which really needs to be read in substantial chunks when you can concentrate on it - 15 minutes here and there is not a very productive way to consume it, which is why it's ended up being a month-long feat of endurance.
OK, so enough whingeing about the Kindle edition, how was the book? Well, it's almost 3 books in 1. The first part, comprising the first 30% or so of the book, was a real chore to read - partly because I think I've reached the point of diminishing returns on cosmology books, partly because it's so verbose and frankly dull. Greene really does beat some of the subjects to death, using far too many analogies for subjects which were easier to understand in the physics than the Simpsons examples.
Just at the point when I was starting to give up on the book, it slides into the 2nd section which was far more interesting - once he got onto Higgs fields and the like, it was far more entertaining; partly, in fairness, because most of this was new to me, and partly because is seemed a lot better written than the first part. (Though the jumping frog analogy wore pretty thin after a while).
Whereas the first two sections are dense blocks of prose, the 3rd section is almost McCosmos in comparison - many different topics covered off in a few pages each. Interesting enough, but felt as though they belonged in a different book, or that they were the notes which would eventually be rewritten into a 3rd part of the book in the same style as the first 2 parts.
After this, there's a huge mass of notes, which were pretty unusable in the Kindle edition because of the difficulty of referring between them and the text.
So - pretty good book in many ways, with some really detailed coverage. If you aren't a physics researcher, this is probably as much (or more) quantum string cosmological mind-bending as you will ever need to read, but I'm a bit hesitant about recommending it, as it's a pretty major slog in places to get through some of the turgid prose. In the end, the probabalistic wavefunction of my quantum superposition collapsed to a recommended state after fluctuating between ticked and non-ticked, but I would heartily recommend getting the physical book over the Kindle version for this one. Much as I love my Kindle, this was hard work to read that way. And finally, learning #3, this is a book which really needs to be read in substantial chunks when you can concentrate on it - 15 minutes here and there is not a very productive way to consume it, which is why it's ended up being a month-long feat of endurance.
strong_extraordinary_dreams's review against another edition
5.0
What seemed to me to be a thorough overview of modern (2005) explorative physics, but what do I know? And perfectly pitched, for me, having gone over 10 or so similar books previously.
Will read again: 5 stars.
Will read again: 5 stars.