Rating: 
Summary: The only book that hurts my brain.
Review: This was seriously one of the best books i have read. Every page is packed with information. I have never learned this much from any book. I would recomend this book to anyone who has an interest in space and time. It explains so much. Read this book it is well worth the time. Exercise your brain with this amazing book. I really enjoyed this book because I kept on learning something new and interesting almost ever page was something awsome. Go buy it i command you. :)
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting but uneven and frustrating
Review: Are the praises for this book really recognition of Hawking's accomplishments or that he achieved them despite his physical infirmities? I approached this book years ago and was swiftly and completely lost. Years passed and I found a wonderful (if dated) primer, Knowledge and Wonder by Weisskopf. My success in understanding K&W (I get quantum physics now and can easily explain it to others) convinced me to reapproach 'Brief History.'The book remains for informed insiders; perhaps not the inner circle, but definitely 'you gotta know it to get it.' Hawking consistently gives very short descriptions of theories that he then refers to throughout the text, but in ways that have little to do with the aspects he defined and in fact require more complete information. For example, I was frustrated trying to use his explanation of the theory of general relativity (p 30) in re: subsequent references. Luckily, in the years between my earlier attempt and this reading, the web has burgeoned and I was able to find a more complete and yet still brief but comprehensible explanation of this theory. And oh my goodness, Hawking now made sense. Obviously the connection is clear in Hawking's mind, but it never made the transition to words on the page. Despite all, I *did* get it. But unfortunately, rather than finishing with a desire to learn more I am just tired and glad to be done with it. I feel like I subjected myself to a badly presented lecture series. Hawking's writing is poor. Ideas ramble, tangential information occasionally takes over so the actual subject at had gets lost, recapitulation is erratic. Some of the self-references are conspicuously self-serving. True, for a scientist it's decent, but the book's writing should not be judged by a different standard than any other writing. That's what editors are for, and apparently this book's editor was so overawed by Hawking that he forgot to do his job. This book should not be iconized. Nor should it be touted as accessible to the layperson. The information is interesting, but you have to want it and work for it. And when you're done, what you get may not have been worth the effort you put in. It was for me, but just barely.
Rating:
Summary: Best Modern Physics book ever published
Review: I was having trouble in physics class with the idea of speed of light and black holes and wormholes, so my teacher suggested that i read this book. The miute i started, i dodnt put it down until i was finished. it cleared up any and every questions i had about anything related to the universe. the author also has a sense of humor which makes the book that much more entertaining. i highly recommend it for anyone whos curious about our universe.
Rating:
Summary: A Brief History of Physics
Review: I just discovered this book in my school library yesterday. It is quite fortunate that I did! Reading the original A Brief History of Time left me with a few questions, and this illustrated version answered nearly all of them. It is very easy to read and understand (thanks to Hawking's lighter tone of writing). As he states in the preface, simply reviewing the illustrations and captions you can get the main idea of the Future Light Cone, the Singularity theorem, general relativity, abolition of absolute time, travelling through space-time with the aid of wormholes, and much more. Not only do you get a quick lesson on cosmology and space-time, but you also learn of the famous physicists throughout time. This book may also serve as a great vocabulary builder. It is my opinion that A Brief History of Time should be a required read in high school science classes.
Rating: 
Summary: It's not THAT good, nor is it THAT easy to read.
Review: I don't care what anyone says, that book was not easy to get through. I have a degree in Math, and he does not give this stuff in layman's terms. Most of it, will eventually make sense if you can wrap your head around the hard to grasp principles, but he keeps adding more, and more to the theories and he will definitely lose you at some point. Now don't get me wrong, it's obvious that we are dealing with complicated stuff, and he needs to discuss these things, but I just don't want you to think that this is an easy read. It's a necessary read, and I DO recommend you buy it, but don't think it will be easy.
Rating:
Summary: Now It Can Be Told: It's Overrated
Review: Stephen Hawking became a celebrity because the image of a wheelchair-bound genius whose mind roamed free was so compelling. As the stir over him dies down, I think it will come out that this reputation-making work of his is not actually so great. I am a smart and semi-numerate layman who loves popular science books, but I barely made it through this one. Although I have lost my copy, I recall that Hawking uses at least one important term without defining it, and at other times leaves you to connect the dots on your own in a frustrating, rather than stimulating, way. Hawking's area is cosmology. I'm not sure who else to recommend to cover the same territory, although Kip Thorne has a good reputation (and a bet with Hawking over some cosmological hypothesis--probably decided by now--with the wager a subscription to Penthouse). If you enjoy physics books in general, I recommend Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, and if you enjoy popular science in general, I recommend my all-time favorite popular science book, Steven Pinker's How The Mind Works.
Rating:
Summary: Perhaps the most important book of our times
Review: I just saw on TV's 60 minutes a show on Hawking that repeated the chattering class's refrain that lots of people buy the book, but nobody reads it. Stupid. As you can see from all the reviews, lots of people read it, and all benefit. Yes, it helps to read other books as well. I suggest Brian Greene's. Try some Richard Feyman. This book is a triumph in many ways. Stephen's unbelievable triumph over his disability and the astounding revelations in the book itself. Buy it, read it, several times, to better absorb the massive amount of information within it. You will be rewarded.
Rating:
Summary: Theoretical Science for the Everyman, At Last!
Review: With minimal knowledge in the field of physics, one can understand this book on everything from black holes to time travel. Stephen Hawking's writing is easy to read and his teaching style is conversational and navigable.
I found this to be a valuable tool in understanding current physics. I would recommend this book for anyone curious about the universe or looking for a introduction to basic theoretical knowledge (and a few others, too)
Rating: 
Summary: Hawking ponders "the end of physics."
Review: The term "accessible" has been used a great deal in assessments of this book (and rightly so). Compared to some books of the genre (science popularizations), this volume is quite easy to read and comprehend. I recently read it for the second time and must disagree with two recurring complaints that I find in other reviews:
1. "You can't understand this stuff, so just put it on your bookshelf to impress others." I say, why not find out whether you will be impressed [yourself]? Your bookshelf can have it later.
2. "The book is poorly written." No it isn't. Complex ideas are rendered easy to grasp; that's good writing. Within a few minutes a reader will understand, for example, the basic difference between matter particles and force carrying particles. The first test of good writing is lucidity, and here Hawking excels.
Hawking's brief examination of various explanations for the universe demonstrates why there is no scientifically acceptable alternative to the big bang model. His so-called "no boundaries" theory does not contradict the concept of "real" space-time having a beginning. In fact he does a fairly adequate job of describing why it must. As to whether Hawking is right or wrong in his theoretical proposals, either in terms of science or in terms of metaphysical interpretation or impetus, there is, of course, some disagreement.
As to the metaphysical (i.e., "okay, but what does it mean?") aspects: Hawking states that, in physics, only the ideas of those already "at the top" are taken seriously. This doesn't mean that ideas don't change over time but it does mean that they continue to pay great deference to error. This [celebrity gaga] has often not served science well, and underscores again the quasi-religious and fallacious qualities of scientism.
Hawking is something of a philosophical reductionist, by which I mean he tends to view reductionism not only as sound methodology -- which it is -- but also as a more fundamental metaphysic; or, more accurately, as a replacement for metaphysics. The idea is that physical truth is not only knowable (i.e., within the limits set by the uncertainty principle), it is of an ultimate quality. This view runs contrary to the so-called neo-Platonist metaphysic preferred by many mathematicians and physicists (Godel and Schrodinger, and Hawking's friend Roger Penrose, for example), who are no less committed to reductionism as methodology, but who deny that ideas about physical 'truth' could ever be known to be ultimate truth. (Of course 'reductionism' is also [more narrowly] used as a denotation for a certain philosophy of methodology, one that is opposed to the so-called complexity theory, but rather than digging deeper into systems of thought and method, let's return our attentions to the universe...). Fortunately, Hawking is not philosophically dogmatic (as are some popularizers). In fact, the good professor generally likes to hedge his bets.
Its seems to Hawking that we have but two potential explanations for the fine-tuning of the universe: a) God's omniscience and will; or b) the anthropic principles. The anthropic principles are dubious, logically and scientifically, but the author looks for a means of making the weak principle seem less, well, goofy. Like most good philosophical reductionists, Hawking is on a mission (with his "no boundaries" proposal) to find alternatives to an omnipotent Law-giver/designer, if in fact, such alternatives can be found (the operative a priori aesthetic generally being that they must be found). The "no boundaries" proposal is bound to the weak anthropic principle (that's the WAP, not the SAP -- logically, both are CR__). The anthropic principles are an awkward assemblage of a posteriori musings, each tautologically stating that things are as we observe them because this is the way things are. As the "no boundaries" model lies entirely within imaginary time, it is external to scientific scrutiny. In Hawking's words, [the proposal] is "put forward for aesthetic or metaphysical reasons." Its truth or falsity "cannot be deduced" and "exists only in our minds." All of which begins to sound less concrete than metaphysics. Hawking's exploratory alternative to a creator is less tangible, and is a far less complete explanation, than is God. I'd say the principle of economy (Okkam's Razor) favors God. Hawking's "no boundaries" inflationary theory has not won many converts among physicists. It's difficult to find much room for science in it. The idea that the universe is 'self-contained' is hardly a radical idea, and the "why" questions persist in all models, including inflationary ones. Something more like Guth's theory is generally favored. To the consternation of popularizers like Raymo and Sagan, Hawking's proposal doesn't get rid of God. Among the book's flaws: the author waves the magic wand of "macromolecules" as he whistles past the graveyard of abiogenesis theories. Among the book's more interesting investigations: black holes, ideas of wormholes in space-time, and the practical difficulties of time travel. In the end we are always led to the question, 'what does it all mean?' Hawking concludes with statements that are poetically lofty but philosophically deficient. Nonetheless, it's an exceptional book, cited often by other physicists (remember that "at the top" statement?), and well worth the couple of evenings it will take to read.
"A lot of prizes have been awarded for showing that the universe is not as simple as we might have thought," says Hawking. Give him a prize, I say.
Rating:
Summary: Good stuff
Review: I decided to read this book because I am currently taking physics and high school and found the idea of astrophysics extremely interesting. I was able to finish the entire book, understanding nearly all of it due to the ease of understanding that Hawking writes with. I'm glad I read this book and I recommend it to anyone who has even a passing interest in advanced astrophysics or anyone who wants a good read.
|
