The Universe in a Nutshell

Rating:
Summary: A glorious survey of modern physics
Review: Hawking has pulled together an imense amount of physics in this gorgeous hard cover edition. The breadth of topics is far reaching, yet simplified in a manner such that people from non-physics backgrounds can readily grasp. For those looking for more depth and less show his lectures on quantum general relativity and black hole law is highly recommended. Is Hawking playfully using stringy methods in forming the laws of black hole mechanics while sharply critizing the string theory, or is he truely abandoning string theory in favor of a more straight-forward and generic approach?

Rating:
Summary: A tour as inexorable and rapid as passage into a black hole
Review: The business of publishing and selling books is tough sometimes. If a book turns out to be popular, then other titles by that author should be popular too, right? Sure, if it's a novelist just pumping out one novel after another. But that quirky science section is different - with the better books overwhelmingly written by professional scientists, as a break from their day job, rather than by professional writers. After the vast, unexpectable success of "Brief History of Time", a library of other Hawking titles were rushed to the shelves from whatever sources possible: recordings of his lectures at Cambridge, a technical debate with Roger Penrose, and books of other authors in some sort of "Stephen Hawking Presents..." format. It's not hard to picture a throng of editors meanwhile pacing outside Hawking's office imploring him impatiently to take time out from his actual work to come up with a proper sequel to the Brief History. Hawking himself pokes fun at this expectation, by asking who would want a "Slightly Longer History of Time", before throwing his hands up - metaphorically - and asking us to bear with him for another proper popular treatment.

However, while Brief History deserved its immense response by building a fantastic elementary description of theoretical physics as a framework for the subsequent description of Hawking's fascinating work on black hole evaporation and entropy, the Universe in a Nutshell is too rushed for the passion and excitement Hawking had in describing his breakthrough. Instead he opts for a whirlwind tour through the usual suspects of current speculative attempts toward fundamental theory - including superstrings, supergravity, M-theory, P-branes - with only the briefest nods to his own work on black hole radiation, explaining inflation with imaginary time, and the problem of information loss in evaporating black holes. The treatment is so hurried, it's a wonder that anything meaningful can be conveyed about the different theories. On top of that, the pages almost drip with humorous asides that are sometimes witty on their own but are so crowded they just become predictable and silly. Add to that an astronomical number of expensive-looking and needlessly contrived graphics, and once again it's hard not to picture the crowd of anxious publishers wringing their hands over this "major publishing event", as it's described in the jacket lapel.

All that aside, it's still Hawking, still both so obviously genius and commanding an expository style second only to Feynman's. Although they're given in breezy snippets, there is still a thoughtful popular treatment here of aspects of quantum theory, general relativity, cosmological inflation, the intersection of branes, the difficulties of time travel, and - what I find among the most intriguing ideas in physics - models of large extra dimensions, following the work of Lisa Randall, Nima Arkani-Hamed and others. Unfortunately he also gives an untoward endorsement of the anthropic principle, of exactly the type Lee Smolin has convincingly condemned.

Hawking also takes a break from physics in the penultimate chapter for an interesting consideration of the future of the human race, in light of apparently inevitable consequences of foreseeable changes. For instance, in discussing human germline genetic engineering, he claims his "intention is not to defend human genetic engineering as a desirable development, but just to say it is likely to happen whether we want it or not", a more realistic assessment than, for example, Edward O. Wilson's. Hawking goes on in the very next paragraph, though, to say "In a way, the human race needs to improve its mental and physical qualities if it is to deal with the increasingly complex world around it and meet new challenges such as space travel." It sounds like maybe he is defending human genetic engineering as a desirable development, after all, at least therapeutic rather than germline. The obvious motivation behind this enthusiasm that he leaves unspoken, is the quite real possibility that therapeutic genetic engineering holds the promise of finally curing conditions like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, from which he suffers - if research is not obstructed by the misguided reactionism to the unknown that often passes for ethics. In mentioning not just coping with this world but preparing for space travel, Hawking seems to want to bring his guest appearance on Star Trek - pictured in this book, with a twist - closer to reality. I imagine Hawking, like many of the rest of us, takes the dream of widespread spaceflight seriously.

This is a great book for your coffee table. Just don't expect a chapter to take as much time to finish as the coffee.

Rating:
Summary: The answer to all your burning theoretical physics questions
Review: As Carl Sagan's book "Cosmos" is to astronomy, so "The Universe in a Nutshell" is to theoretical physics. Author of the popular "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking is back with a book that attempts to bring to the masses Einstein's Relativity Theory, p-branes, black holes, cosmic strings, dark matter, imaginary time, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and all things Planck. Despite the mind boggling task of trying to make cutting edge physics accessible to those who wouldn't know a boson from a bison, Hawking more or less succeeds.

The basis for this work is the search for the elusive "M-Theory" that will tie all of theoretical physics up in a nice neat bow. But as Hawking himself attempts to bring many disparate ideas together under one aegis, it becomes readily apparent that "The Universe in a Nutshell" will only spawn more questions than it answers. In fact, the reader may actually finish this book and get the nutty idea that science, in truth, CAN'T answer all questions about how we got here and where we are going. Hawking himself even tosses off asides that perhaps some things are only known by God.

Even though Hawking tries to present the laymen with a good overview of what is happening on all those physicists' chalkboards in Cambridge, Oxford, Princeton, and Stanford, some discussions come off better than others. The section on general and special relativity was well explained and to the point. His arguments for and against time travel and whether the future can be predicted are also well done. The chapter wondering if our future will be like what we see on Star Trek was a bit weak and a little gratuitous considering that he makes certain we know that he was actually in a Star Trek:TNG episode playing poker against Data, Einstein, and Newton (and winning, too.) That chapter also felt a bit out of place as it borders more on the sociological. The final chapter in which he discusses brane theory, though, is fascinating and quite mindbending as he finds a way to account for phenomena (energy loss, dimensional errors, and missing gravity) that still elude most scientists.

Will everyone be able to follow "Universe in a Nutshell"? No. Hawking could not, for me, make his discussion of imaginary time graspable. Imaginary numbers I understand, but telling time with them? Some concepts are better left to others. For the most part, though, much of the book will be understood by those who slow down reading long enough to truly think about what Hawking is saying. And if you can't follow the text, the computer-generated illustrations are helpful (although they have an oddly sterile and dated appearance - possibly because computer graphics technology advances so swiftly. Where's a time machine when you really need one?)

While Hawking searches for the M-Theory and a place to put his inevitable Noble Prize, other philosophies and religions attempt to explain the nature of the universe. The world's most famous living scientist may have a scientific answer for us, but for anyone looking to sum up all things, his "The Universe in a Nutshell" is only one small book in a sea of tomes attempting to explain life, the universe, and everything.

Rating:
Summary: Steven Hawking, the 'pop star' scientist.
Review: I got this book to open my mind to how the universe works, and it's a great book. Astrophysics, quantum physics, relativity theory and a host of other scientific theories are not the most interesting of topics for your average reader.

This book is different, its not you're typical dusty old science book you find in the deepest recesses of the university library. This is a modern, well written book, its been written solely to educate the 'less-informed' people in our society. Me, being one of these less-informed people found it a very interesting, thought provoking book.

I like that he explains how modern thinking has evolved from old ideas. He tells us about old theories and how they have influenced modern ideas. He points out the flaws and weaknesses of many theories while still maintaining respect for the thinking behind them.

Hawking, who obviously has a lust for trying to figure out the inner workings of our universe emphasizes his love of the subject and he tries to convey that to the reader. He makes the most complex of scientific thinking somewhat understandable through easy to look at drawings (in someway its a great book just because the drawings look so different). He also uses a lot of humour to bring some refreshment to reader (although I did personally find this to be kind of 'geeky'). This is definatly a book written for the modern world.

Admittedly though, the subject is a very complex one; not everyone is destined to become a great thinker like Hawking's. You can water down the theories, simplify to the equations, even emphasize the theology with clever illustrations. Truth is it's still a difficult book to read and understand. Hawking's does his best, and it a very valiant attempt, but no amount of humour and simplification will make this an easy to understand book.

3 Stars

Rating:
Summary: And that's MY universe?
Review: Hawking's discoveries are indeed amazing, as is his book "A Brief History Of Time", but "The Universe In A Nutshell" can hardly be put in the same category. This book was intended to be even more simple and easy-to-understand than "A Brief History Of Time"; what seems to have been changed, though, is - the facts have been kept, but the explanations taken away as too hard to understand.

I refuse to just accept things without knowing WHY, so I didn't like the book. I learned nothing new. The pictures, while certainly interesting, didn't provide any information at all. Hawking attempts to write about EVERYTHING - the whole universe, indeed - but in the end you realize he has truly explained nothing.

I urge you to buy "A Brief History Of Time" instead, if you haven't already. Maybe the universe just cannot be put in a nutshell...

Rating:
Summary: Hawking explains physics as well as he knows physics
Review: Stephen Hawking is truly an amazing person, one of the most talented physicists of all time and also a very good expository writer. This, his second book written for the general reader, is just as good as his first, "A Brief History of Time." What I found better about this book is that he ventures farther into the leading edge of physics speculation, all the while still holding firm to the current reality of physics.
He starts with a brief explanation of relativity, quantum mechanics and how the two are related. After this, he explores the structure of the universe, how it may have many histories, and the restrictions that must be applied so that the physical laws allow for the creation of habitable planets and minds that can ask these questions.
My favorite chapters were the last four, where he really extrapolates out our current knowledge into some rather interesting areas. Chapter 4 is an explanation of how the loss of information when black holes are formed may limit our ability to predict the future of the universe. Chapter 5 is a discussion as to whether time travel is possible, chapter 6 moves us forward in time, where he explores where humans will be in several centuries. In true Hawking style, he debunks Star Trek as a predictor of the future, although not for the reasons most use. His points are that there will be a growing synergy between humans and electronic components, which is ironic, as his vision of humans in the timeframe of Star Trek© The Next Generation is more physically ( however not socially) consistent with the portrayal of the Borg than rather than the humans.
While the universe is truly complex, the basics can be understood by nearly everyone, provided they are presented in the proper way. Hawking is one who can do that and this book is the existence proof.

Rating:
Summary: Nutty Professor Hawking
Review: I walk away from this book realizing three things. First, that Hawking, "the world's smartest man" (according to The Simpsons), has a limited if not naive understanding of the philosophy, history, and sociology of science. In spite of his lip service to scientific positivism, he seems very much to believe that the supposedly imminent Theory of Everything will describe how the universe actually works, instead of being just one way (out of many) to explain incomplete observations. Hawking believes in scientific progress.

Second, I realize that the standard model of the universe, if indeed we could indentify just one, is utterly absurd. Hawking is supposedly describing the universe on the smallest and largest scales, but this is not the world in which we LIVE, i.e., make our own observations and ratiocinations. When it comes to the very large and the very small (and even the very fast), we rely on scientists to elucidate us, and what a tale they tell: relative time, 10-11 dimensions, real time travel. Why do we listen? Hawking's writing is sometimes quite enjoyable but rarely cogent per se. Do we need to believe?

Third, I see that science is always a language of metaphors, with all their aptness and distortions. "Strings," "wormholes," and apparently even "dimension," are all just linguistic shorthands for concepts with which we have no experience to even justify such labelings. A fascinating book to be sure, not because it explains any secrets of the universe, but because we think it might.

Rating:
Summary: an amazing book
Review: it is a master peice. i am a 15 year old boy and i thought it was absolutly amazing it realy takes you in there. the examples are very interesting and they a simple enough to understand.

it is GREAT!!!

Rating:
Summary: Survey of current thought
Review: Those of you trying to decide whether to buy this book should know what questions are addressed in it. Here is a sample of them. How did the universe start and how will it end? What is "spin"? What is string theory? What is gravity? Is it scientifically possible to time travel?

Now to describe the author's writing style. I found this book very readable, but there were times when I wanted him to go back and explain something very basic about his subject, to let me catch up. It would have helped if I had thought to look in the back of the book for a list of definitions. It's there, but I only discovered it when I finished the book. I think a list of definitions would be the type of thing you'd want to put at the beginning, not at the end. Well, now you know it's there.

A simple concrete example is his use of the word "brane". He gives some explanations, and it is obviously key to a lot of his thought, but I really didn't have the concept. I ended up looking on the internet to learn more about what a brane is. For your benefit, it is short for membrane, it isn't a misspelling of brain. If I've got it, our universe may or may not be on a brane, and there may be several branes stacked up near each other, and they must be quite large if they contain universes. I really need some help getting the big picture. Mathematicians focus on the numbers and take a lot of the basic background material for granted.

The picture I'm getting is that what is large to us, like the countless galaxies that make up the universe, is small to those who are looking at a bunch of stacked up branes, each of which contains a universe, or for all I know, countless universes. Don't look to me for tutoring in physics. But I think the kind of basic questions and misunderstandings that I have would make for a decent interview with Stephen Hawking, because it would bring his ideas and explanations closer to the lay reader.

One thing I've noticed about him is that he seems overconfident. He seems to think that we are on the verge of a breakthrough that will explain all. Even I know better than that. The next generation of physicists will simply disprove everything he believes in, just as Einstein's theories have had holes poked in them. A thousand years from now his theories will seem quaint.

I was taught that gravity is a force of attraction that exists between any two objects. I never could picture that. If I put two big rocks on a table, I wouldn't see them inching towards each other. I see no reason why there should be a force of attraction between objects, other than magnetism.

Stephen Hawking redefines gravity for me. In his hands it is no longer a force of attraction between two objects - at least not solely that. I'll give you my own version of an explanation, not too dissimilar to Hawking's, but clearly my own.

Imagine a glass full of water placed on a couch. Now imagine a large object, like Luciano Pavarotti, sitting down on the couch next to the glass. He will get wet, no? The glass will be "attracted" to him. That is because the depression that he made in the couch is so close to the glass that the glass will fall into it. There's gravity in a nutshell. It is a curvature of space that is made by big objects. And it draws other objects into it.

Now my next problem in understanding gravity is that I don't see the couch that the Sun is sitting on.

Hawking also helped me to understand the concept of "other dimensions". I could never picture in my mind what was meant by other dimensions.

How do we go from two dimensions (a piece of flat paper) to three dimensions? Add a bunch more paper on top of the first, and you have depth.

How do we go from three spatial dimension (as we have now) to four spatial dimensions (forget about the dimension of time, don't drive me crazy)? We take our whole planet, our whole universe, our whole brane, and we stack a bunch more on top of them. So that makes our universe or our brane no longer something with a depth of countless miles. It makes our universe a flat object (relatively speaking) with a depth of 1. Flat as a piece of paper. Think of it as the outside skin of a balloon. The whole inside of the balloon is the next spatial dimension. As for why time is a dimension, go away and leave me alone.

Hawking knocks down the straw man of newspaper astrology, as if it needed to be knocked down, but does so in a casual and unconvincing way, clearly not the result of a lot of thinking. I wonder if he knows that Isaac Newton was a strong believer in astrology, and that newspaper astrology is a very poor example of the subject. If he ever chose to really look into the subject he'd do well to start with Robert Hand and Grant Lewi. They can't be laughed off as vague and useless.

The answer that Isaac Newton would have given to him is the same one he actually gave to the scientist Halley. Newton simply told Halley that he, Newton, had looked deeply into the subject, and Halley didn't.

Hawking's case against time travel is also unconvincing. What seems like impossible obstructions to him may prove to be hurdles that will be surpassed eventually.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointed
Review: When I first saw this book in the store, I was thrilled. Combined with my previous experience with Hawking in "A brief History of Time", and the color photos and diagrams in this volume, I thought this work held the promise of a very informative and understandable book.
I was very much mistaken. The author jumps around so much that it becomes impossible to follow his train of thought. During the read, I went through the initial section somewhat perplexed. Upon the next section, the author seemed to take a more understandable tact and I started to believe the first section was there to offer initial exposure (and wonder), and then a better understanding would be provided later on in the text. Unfortunately this proved not to be the case.
In the author's own words, many of the theories put forth are un-provable. Would have loved to know which ideas are based on solid scientific evidence and which are based solely on creative imagination.
Overall, while reading the book I keep coming back to the same idea. Theoretical physists base their position and understanding of the universe on mathematics. In this case, mathematics so involved and convoluted that they become meaningless. By that I simply mean that one can use numbers to show anythng you want it to show. Reality based or not. One only has to look as far as a corporate balence sheet to see that. I have to say that it seems physics has gone off on a tangent of monumental proportions following a path of increasingly mis-leading formulas and the belief that if the numbers work, it must be right.
For me, phisics is a facinating study and full of wonder and possibility. However, when a concept like Einstein's equivalency can be interpreted in a different way simply by understanding that equivalent does not mean the same. It means equal. In Einsteins elevator example you get the same effect, but is that because the actions are in fact the same or the results of different action? Every few years a new theory or postulate gets put forth and becomes the explaination du jour. One only has to look at the previous track record to cast doubts on the present theories.
Perhaps I would not have as many misgivings about this book and what it puts forth if it were written in a more concise and understandable manner. Unfortunately it does not live up to Hawkings previous work in either information or delivery.