Rating: 
Summary: Excellent cursory explanation of modern physics
Review: Although now a bit dated (it lacks explanation of some of the more advanced discoveries in String Theory and M-Theory), this is a fantastic introduction to the principles of modern theoretical physics.A few years ago, I found myself reinventing an interest in Physics. I started with "Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality" by John Gribbin, another fantastic book, and this one was a very natural and approachable next step. The book begins with a very good introduction to the history of Physics and its most notable discoveries, concentrating on late 19th century and early to mid-20th century science. It covers everything from Newton's 1st law to Bohr's atom. And from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to Feynman's QED. All reasonably rudimentary instruction, to be sure, but fantastic for the armchair physicist. Definitely worth the time and money!
Rating:
Summary: Where Einstein left off
Review: Is there one thing that all matter is made out of ? gerneral relativity(study of Gravity) and Quantum
mechanics(study of ElectroMagnetism) are both proven, But when you try to see Gravity work at a microscopic (with ElectroMagnetism(Quantum mechanics)) level ,they are not Mathematicly compatible, why?, Brian Greene showed how they do Mix
are compatable ,that is at 100 billon billon times smaller then an atom, different vibrations(energy levels)of a (rubberband like) string make up all matter, and the higher there vibration(energy level) the heavyer the atom. the proff is in the pudding on page 340
A the black hole entropy(surface area) predicted by Steven Hawking ,was
mathimaticly built succeedingly with string theory by ,
Strominger & Vafa to mix the two (at first thought not compatible) General relativity and Quantum mechanics
in a Elegent picture of the of the microscopic consituents and its entropy percisely,A quater-century-old puzzle SOLVED
Einstein would have been proud!
Rating: 
Summary: we have two different audiences!
Review: After reading the preceeding reviews, there seems to be a bisection of readers. They fall roughly into two categories; The layman\non-scientist and those who have a generous breadth of knowledge in mathematics and\or physical science. (sidenote: although individuals and universities debate it from time to time, mathematics is not validated by scientific experiment, and thus should be considered as a different class of study.)
For the layman, this book will provide a very basic and intuitive framework for classic and modern physics, and take the previously unknowing individual through a more or less simple tour of some of the results and ideas of string theory. If you dont know anything about physics\mathematics, then this journey should be a pleasurable one, and might even grab enough interest that you pursue a more rigorous treatment of some mathematical or physical speculation or phenomena. Reader be warned, however, that Professor Greenes very charasmatic and enthusiastic approach might be enough to make you too a believer in the validity of this theory,and that it answers the discrepancy between relativity\quantum mechanics, which is popularly coveted as "the problem" of modern physics. The problem is large, but realistically only occupies a very small group of most scientists\mathematicians time. For those who have never encoutered the hilbert vector space, this book provides some information about one of the more exciting ideas in science today, but take it with a grain of salt. The "secrets of the universe" are more abundant in a rigorous treatment of analytic mechanics than in a superficial treatment of something so enticing, yet esoteric.
For those that have been introduced in gross detail to the world of science today...I will not waste your time. Read the book,on the off chance that you havent looked into the theory already. There are analogies that will baffle you and some exposition that seems overy simple or almost apologetic for the "super hard math" that accompanies the theory, but nonetheless provides some worthwhile information and insight from an intellegent man.
Rating:
Summary: A remarkable exposition of high-energy physics
Review: A remarkable exposition of the string theory. Brian Greene is a high-energy physicist of the first rank, and he does an excellent job of explaining the history and background of theoretical science, which led to the latest superstring theory. Beginning with Newtonian physics he leads the reader through relativity and quantum mechanics with clear, logical, everyday illustrations, although his explanation of quantum mechanics did get a little rarefied-understandable for sub-atomic behavior that is often described as "weird." He explains the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the resulting need for a unifying theory, which gave rise to the string theory, which seems to have the potential to become a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.): "The moment you encounter string theory and realize that almost all of the major developments in physics over the last hundred years emerge--and emerge with such elegance-from such a simple starting point, you realize that this incredibly compelling theory is in a class of its own" --Michael Green, formerly of Queen Mary College --one of the pioneers of string theory What is string theory? Simply put, it proposes that the basic, radical building block of all sub-atomic particles, energy and matter is not a point particle, but rather a one-dimensional string-loop about a hundred billion billion times smaller (the so-called Planck length) than an atomic nucleus which vibrates at an undetermined, but potentially infinite number of wavelengths, amplitudes and tensions, comparable to a violin string The various wavelengths and amplitudes give the "particles" their characteristic properties. Our present-day experiments are unable to resolve the microscopic stringy nature of matter: Greene says we would need an accelerator to slam matter together with energies some million billion times more powerful than any previously constructed accelerator in order to reveal directly that a string is not a point-particle, so discoveries in the foreseeable future depend upon mathematical formulae and the resulting deductions. String theory so far claims that such strings are nature's most fundamental ingredient and that if the presumed point-particles composing electrons, quarks, protons, neutrons, positrons, photons, etc., could be examined with a precision significantly beyond our present capacity, each would be seen to be made of a single, tiny, oscillating loop of string. In physics, oscillation is to vary regularly between maximum and minimum values, as an electric current. Brian Green has done a masterful job of explaining in layman's terms some of the most abstruse theoretical science currently being discussed and studied by some of the foremost high-energy physicists on the planet. Joseph Pierre
author of THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS: Our Journey Through Eternity
and other books
Rating: 
Summary: The violin is out of tune and the TOE is a TON
Review: I read this book in two days, and my conception of nature did leave unchanged. The book is well written, but the historical outlines, the physics and the mathematics are shocking for readers with a solid scientific background. Moreover, string-M "theory" (SMT) is pure speculation -I doubt that it was a scientific hypothesis- without experimental support.
I find several "dishonest" claims. For instance, is there only one free parameter in the whole theory? Greene forgets the "vacuum degeneracy problem", i.e. the approximately 18 free parameters of the standard model have been replaced by 100 continuous plus at least 10000 (Calabi-Yau compactifications) discrete ones of current SMT. A little of "advanced" mathematics said that 10100 >> 18 > 1. Greene is a little arrogant, because he assumes implicitly that a string physicist knows "more" and "best" than other scientists and mathematicians does. Then he declares repeatedly that only SMT is difficult, interesting, elegant and fundamental, but he does not provide scientific evidence for his own beliefs. Moreover, Greene closes his eyes to other Schools in quantum gravity as loop canonical theory. My opinion is that Greene?s aim may be publicizing SMT "at every price". It is not true that the incompatibility between relativity and the quantum is the most important open problem of theoretical physics. Physicists know other two well-known incompatibilities -with significant future practical applications in chemistry or quantum computing, whereas the strings are only metaphysics- what are much more important: that of quantum mechanics with Newtonian theory (decoherence theory) and that of thermodynamics with dynamics (the so-called time "paradox"). The historical sketch by the author is archaic and/or incorrect in several points. E.g., Greene shows to Newton or Faraday as physicists, when both were chemists with some interest in physics. Around 1960's, the historians have showed how Newton discovered gravitation from his chemical investigations in affinity (chemical attraction). What is more, Faraday was a co-worker of the chemist H. Davy -his first scientific paper was "Analysis of Native Caustic Lime of Tuscany"-. The error of interpretation of mc2 (see a previous review) is yet present in my version. "Advanced" mathematics said that mc2 = (mc)c. i.e. one multiply first m and c and then mc and c, not m and c two times neither m and 2c! The discussion of classical physics by Greene is tolerable, but the presentation of the quantum mysteries is completely wrong. You must be not astonished! Greene is only a simple string theorist, not a specialist in quantum theory. He mixes negligently quantum "amplitudes" in the "position representation" with Dirac deltas in phase space. As can be easily demonstrated, his discussion of tunnel effects, trajectories and path integrals is incorrect in both physical and mathematical terms. A physicist said: "How can we hope a possible profound conception of nature from theorists with knowledge so unacceptable of the basic theories of physics?" In my opinion, we cannot hope it. Unfortunately, the part devoted to SMT is plagued of arrogant claims about the "hard" mathematics used in his field, instead of presenting the basic principles of the "theory". I see much confusion here. People opines that string theory is difficult because there are approximate and/or unsolved equations in it. All science is plagued of that. In fact, in more than 100 years of the quantum, nobody has defined rigorously an atom of chemistry. Since pioneering work by Gibbs and Einstein in equilibrium problems, nobody had developed a useful and rigorous non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. There is no one mathematician in the world solving the N-representation problem of density matrices in quantum chemistry, etc. Of course, some "topological" parts of SMT are hard, but in others parts the theory is only a straightforward linear-group-unitary quantum mechanics. I am sorry said this, but I have in my home a standard book in NMR chemistry with more general mathematics... I should cite the hierarchy of mathematical spaces used in spin dynamics: "S" => "L" => "H". Chemists working in NMR use the three spaces. Critical (bosonic) string theory in D=26 uses only the "H"-space. In the recent conference "Quantum Future" some expertises have critiqued the fact of that SMT is "very traditional in the sense of the quantum theoretical formalism employed". This is true. In fact, I and others are working in a strong generalization of quantum formalism, because the axiomatic foundation of quantum mechanics is mathematically incompatible with structural chemistry! Of course, this is unknown in those "rigorous and highly glamorous" levels of SMT with "super-advanced mathematics". In general, I disagree with Gell-Mann ideas (see my review), but at least he is fine in one point: quarks (as strings, or the supergravitons, supermembranes, and M5-branes of the new M-theory) are simple, whereas atmospheric chemistry, neurology, Jaguars and others are complex items. The final remarks by Greene about the future impact of SMT on quantum mechanical community are also socking for us. Let me cite a quote from a recognized leader in quantum measure theory (H.D. Zeh): "The suggestion that M-theory may eventually lead to a derivation of quantum theory (Witten 1997) seems to be based on a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics." Conclusion: I recommended read it for a simple sketch of SMT -the book ignore much recent work as Matrix theory- and for seeing how a member of the team of string theorists perceives (very incorrectly!) our fascinating universe. This book was bestseller. I believe that the curiosity about SMT was the principal reason or perhaps people likes wrong historical outlines, pure speculation without experimental support, neglect of other Schools, arrogant metaphysical claims, incorrect presentations of basic theories, "archaic" mathematics, etc. I does not censure the possible scientific errors of Greene -seeing the majesty and complexity of our universe, I believes that I am an "ignorant"!-. I, as others, disapprove the obvious arrogance of string theorists and their reject and/or ignorance of the rest of "traditional" science...
Rating:
Summary: This book is the best what I have ever read !!!
Review: This book is the best book I have ever read... This book explains The Theory of Relativity on Chapter 1 And In Chapter 2 explains Quantum Mechanics .. But you need not care ....It's very easy to understand ... I was expressed
Rating:
Summary: Excellent analogies explaining complex topics
Review: The physical laws of the universe are the most interesting facts that humans possess. Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton did the most to codify those laws and consequently, are the two most well known scientists. However, despite his enormous intellect, physics passed Einstein by, as he was never reconciled to the laws of quantum mechanics, which governs the behavior of matter at very small distances. While his theory of relativity is extremely accurate in predicting the behavior of matter in the large, it is fundamentally in opposition to quantum mechanics when the distances are very small. Since both sets of laws have been verified to an extremely high degree of accuracy, resolving the incompatibility requires an encompassing theory that incorporates each set of laws, but only within their size bounds. Superstring theory is a theory that is an attempt to resolve the differences, and so it is complex, yet fascinating.
Greene does a superb job in the difficult task of explaining the essences of relativity and quantum mechanics, where they are in conflict, and how superstring theory may resolve the problems. After this background is established, he then describes, in layman's terms, what a superstring is and how it can represent all of the "fundamental" particles currently known or conjectured.
His use of analogies from everyday life is a stroke of genius. This is what sets the book apart from many others and these are some of the best analogies that I have ever read. They are used in the explanations of all of the topics and they capture the essence of what are very difficult and non-intuitive theories. Even if your interest was in learning only the basics of relativity or quantum mechanics, you should read this book. Having spent over a decade as a reviewer, I have read hundreds of books in popular mathematics and science. There is no question that this one ranks in the top five.
Rating:
Summary: Not for all audiences
Review: I approached this book from the standpoint of someone who knew a bit of quantum mechanics, relativity, and mathematics but nothing at all about string theory. I was curious to find out what it was all about and this book seemed to be the most tractable way of doing that. However I found it a bit disappointing for several reasons. First, as others have mentioned, many of the examples given are overly simple and not necessarily tenable. This may help some people but those with stronger backgrounds will find themselves bored and somewhat confused. Second, though I am not in a position to judge the relevance of certain points made by Greene, it seemed as if he went out of his way to discuss the intricacies of certain parts of the theory. One example is the section about "space-tearing flop transformations," which I thought it was unnecessary. The fact that these occur the way they do is important to know; however he seemed to be trying to qualitatively derive or prove the result to the layman. In the process he probably frustrated most people like me, who have some idea of what he was getting at quantitatively but do not know exactly what he was doing, because his explanations are just not at all quantitative. I imagine that it probably also frustrated the layman because this part was not particularly interesting reading. Of course he could not use mathematical arguments for a book intended for the layman, so why bother including these details? Finally, and this is probably not a fault with the book because the book seemed mostly honest, I think that string theory just does not seem convincing after reading this. Greene is very enthusiastic about the theory and as a scientist I have learned firsthand that enthusiasm in science does not necessary equal correctness. String theory has yet to make any verified predictions, and according to the book has been modified many times to account for inconsistencies with observations. If a person wanted to, they could come up with a theory stating that gravity is due to all matter being made up of magnets, and this would be consistent with some our macroscopic observations. However we would eventually find that it is not correct. I'm sure that string theory in its current form is more elegant than this book makes it seem, but the book does leave the reader with a bit of skepticism. Overall I think it is worth reading to find out what string theory is all about, however if there are other books out there that are either more concise or more quantitative, I think that these would be of more interest to people with moderate scientific backgrounds.
Rating:
Summary: Best book for the layman on Super-string theory.
Review: This was the best overall book for me to read on super-string theory. The book is amazingly clear and well written. The book was very inspirational for me as a book author, as my book "Actual Proof of My Existence - Signed God of the Bible"; is all about string-theory and the Bible. A string is 10-33 centimeters in length and Psalm 33:2 says "An instrument of (ten strings)" and this book (Elegant Universe)is all about the 10-11 dimensional universe made of strings! The word "string" in all forms appears just 9 times in the Bible and the book talks of 9 dimensional membranes. Or how about the time dimension at 10-44 seconds and Psalm 44:1 says "in the (times) of old" I found 23 match constants "power of ten" terms landing on the correct Psalm numbers; all in the first few verses. The Bible uses the term curtains to mean space-time dimensions Psalm 104:2 "He stretches the heavens like a curtain." The Tabernacle of Moses in Exodus 26 (like 26 bosonic particles)has dimensions (curtains)that look just like the 10,11 dimensional theories (in the Elegant Universe book)with 5 curtains on each side (5 string theories)and the Bible uses the term "coupled together" and 5 and 6 inner curtains 5 + 6 = 11, and even a fold in the eleventh curtain (dimension). Exodus 26:10 "And thou shalt make (fifty loops) on the edge of the one curtain that is outmost in the coupling, and (fifty loops) in the edge of the curtain which (coupleth) the second." Exodus 26:11 And thou shalt make (fifty taches of brass), and put the taches into the (loops), and (couple) the tent together, that it may be one. Oddly enough (50 + 50 loops) = 100 and verse number Exod:(26 + 11) = 37 (37 + 100)= 137; the mystery "coupling constant." Quantum (empty vacuum) gravity in Job 26:7? Job 26:7 He (stretcheth) out the north over the (empty place), and (hangeth the earth upon nothing); verse 26 + 7 = 33 the Planck length. Symmetry mirror 267 | 762 and 76 / 2 = 38; and gravity is 10-38 power times weaker than the strong force. The word "space" appears within (26) verses of the Bible and JEHOVAH is 26 in Hebrew. Gravity in Psalm 38:4 "For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an (heavy burden) they are (too heavy) for me"; The Newtonian gravity constant is: 6.707 x 10^-39 (GeV/c2)-2; (10^-39 is the power number); the word 'heavy' is found in exactly 39 different verses of the Bible. Matthew 14:25 "And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, (walking on the sea)." Now Jesus is a little higher than gravity (38) because He is walking on the water and verse numbers (14 + 25) = 39. The core numbers of "universal constants" and string theory/M-theory are found in the Bible (verse numbers matching content)just like the Elegant Universe book; very mysterious indeed. I throughly enjoyed this book and highly recommend it.
...
Rating:
Summary: I felt my brain growing!
Review: Before I read this book, I didn't know the first thing about string theory, general relativity or quantum mechanics. I believe people like me were the author's target audience; that is, people who are profoundly interested in the mysterious physics of the universe, but lack the scientific or mathematical background to understand them in their raw form. This book certainly shouldn't be seen as anything other than an introduction for those of us outside the field of physics. Each chapter in this book lays down the foundation for the next chapter. Greene manages to group together scattered discoveries from the past century or so according to their relevance to the topic at hand, and it feels very natural. Every complex concept is explained in somewhat technical detail and then followed up immediately by a clever (and occasionally humorous) analogy. The key points are always restated and rephrased to make absolutely sure the reader is on the same page with the author. This method really does wonders for nailing important concepts to your head, which turns out to be absolutely essential as the book progresses and new ideas are stacked atop the old. This book, overall, is interesting. There are some extraordinarily intriguing chapters that will have your mind racing for at least a couple days, trying to piece together the chapter's implications, and then there are a couple dull chapters that almost feel like a chore to get through. However, the dull chapters, which seem to be flooded with basic mathematical and technical details, are necessary to understand the big picture. Greene only presents us with the details we need to understand, nothing more, and I honestly can't think of a way he could have made these dull chapters exciting. If you are a curious physics newbie, or only know bits and pieces about the basic concepts of string theory, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, black holes, the big bang, or hidden dimensions, this book is certainly for you! If you are already knowledgeable in these subjects and seek the deepest technical and mathematical information about them, I'm guessing you will not find what you are looking for in this book.
| 
