Rating: 
Summary: A grave disappointment
Review: As a fan of Stephen Hawking, I was anxious to read this work - looking forward once again to his humorous and "banally-esoteric" approach to science. But I was gravely disappointed. My own fault really, for not reading the editorials, the reviews... or even the jacket!If I'd only glanced at the bottom of the jacket I would have known that Hawking (whose photo and name are the most dominant features on the cover) had only written the forward to this book, and nothing else. Go figure. But in spite of that, I began to eat from it greedily, expecting that it would at least resemble the familiar and palatable taste of a Hawking work. I was wrong of course. So then I felt sort of cheated. I guess I resent being hoodwinked. But then maybe I'm just too sensitive. Apparently, David Filkin's approach to literary science is to be condescendingly simple. Which is okay if you promote it that way. But if you fire your intentions from the ramparts of Stephen Hawking's identity, I think it'd be best to run somewhat parallel to his reader's level of awareness, and allow us the dignity of licking the wounds of our own self-esteems as they occur. The book attempts to be a chronological outline of scientific discovery. At times though, it becomes almost predictable - and as a result, boring. At other times, it wanders (Hawking wanders too, but he does so for good reasons, and usually has me laughing before he's back on track). Further moments are occupied with repetition, contradiction and redundancies - not to mention a maddening penchant for patting my head, and saying, "I know you didn't understand that, so here's a simpler explanation". I had the nagging feeling that Filkin was being careful not to overburden the reader with science. Or at least the kind of science that requires explaining. Sure, I'm not a whiz at chemistry, and I flunked calculus twice, but at least give me a chance to feel stupid where I fully expect to. Don't tread softly on me if you think I won't understand it, especially if you're representing Stephen Hawking for Pete's sake! Don't get me wrong - I am not a Stephen Hawking fanatic with a get-even agenda (I've had my moments with portions of Hawking's work a time or two also). My exasperation is purely clinical - I expect to get what I pay for. Or at least what I see on the cover. Not recommended
Rating: 
Summary: Great beginners book.
Review: Editors note:- I have a previous review which I would like to change for the following... * If this contravene's your rules just leave it out. As noted by another reviewer, this book was written by a journalist and uses Hawking's name for promotional purposes. It is a great book for an introduction to relativity for begginers but if you are well versed and are looking for some new idea's then look elsewhere.* For an example see Http//www.i-o.net.au/members/norileah/ I have started an on going home page dealing with relativity.Readers comments are welcome...
Rating: 
Summary: significant contribution to the discussion
Review: First, Stephen Hawking did not write this book. A journalist wrote it, as a history of the development of our understanding through the sciences and key players of the respective times, culminating in our time and key player, Stephen Hawking. Second, it is an excellent explanation of how we got to where we are in understanding. What I like about it most, is what I found in it that is absent in most such books - an honest admitting that, at every turn and at every new development, more questions were generated than answers, and the possible answers have not yet been able to eliminate the possiblity of randomness or creative divinity at the beginning. In addition, it shows clearly that scientists have made as many mistakes as the religious (i.e. the use of radio-active material at its earliest use in society). Most importantly, there is a documented record of the historal view that the big bang was a Christian contribution that does not destroy the idea of God, but was supportive of the idea of God, through science. The whole story of Einstein's criticism of Newton's physics (the foundation of astronomy for hundreds of years); the implications of the Hubble expanding universe discovery and Lemaitre's reasoning back to the day before which there was not; this history, so conveniently overlooked in so much of the literature, is the line upon which Stephen Hawking's work with black holes rests. The theories, the conjectures, the politics, the pride and competition, all these issues are a part of the history of the development of our current understanding, far from the image of scientists as noble altruistic champions in the search for absolute truth that we'd be lead to believe. And finally, the concept of "faith" is not the property of the religious. This book makes faith a key element in the work of the scientists who believe things they can't see or empirically experience. Faith then becomes the catalyst for the direction in which one searches, and the template of interpretation once something is found. In this, all people are one, in that, whatever we do, faith must be a component thereof. Hats off to David Filkin.
Rating:
Summary: Too simple, bad photos, not Hawking.
Review: I'm not a cosmologist, but Stephen Hawking's Universe was so simply written it is essentially condescending. The language is akin to the level one would read in a newspaper. Moreover, the pictures are second rate pre-contact lense Hubble knock-offs (despite being published in 1997), and the book has very little to do with Stephen Hawking. Sure, he wrote the foreward and did some editing, but it lacks the wit and wonder of a Hawking work. Naming the book after him and putting his picture on the front is misleading. I AM a chemist, and despite this, Filkin's descriptions of Chemical discoveries left even me guessing because he was attempting to dumb-down ideas that aren't dumb-downable, and didn't include diagrams which would be helpful for anyone trying to understand the concepts (like neutrino capturing or particle acceleration). If you want to learn some cosmology, read "A Brief History of Time" or "A Short History of the Universe". These are simply written but informative works that won't leave you waiting for substance.
Rating:
Summary: Too simple, bad photos, not Hawking.
Review: I'm not a cosmologist, but Stephen Hawking's Universe was so simply written it is essentially condescending. The language is akin to the level one would read in a newspaper. Moreover, the pictures are second rate pre-contact lense Hubble knock-offs (despite being published in 1997), and the book has very little to do with Stephen Hawking. Sure, he wrote the foreward and did some editing, but it lacks the wit and wonder of a Hawking work. Naming the book after him and putting his picture on the front is misleading. I AM a chemist, and despite this, Filkin's descriptions of Chemical discoveries left even me guessing because he was attempting to dumb-down ideas that aren't dumb-downable, and didn't include diagrams which would be helpful for anyone trying to understand the concepts (like neutrino capturing or particle acceleration). If you want to learn some cosmology, read "A Brief History of Time" or "A Short History of the Universe". These are simply written but informative works that won't leave you waiting for substance.
Rating: 
Summary: Beware! You will be dumber after reading this!
Review: I've always enjoyed Stephen Hawking's writings, as in them he clearly explains things without condescendingly simplifying them, mixes humor with science, and conveys the awe and thrill of scientific discovery. However, once I got past the forward of this book (the only part written my Hawking), I could see that this book was a complete failure. I should have known when someone got me the book; Filkin is a total non-scientist and I now know is scientifically illiterite. I was first confronted with horrid and sometimes malicious (or at least maddeningly stupid) terminology errors. For example, throughout the book, a brown dwarf is said to be a cooled-down white dwarf. WRONG! A brown dwarf is a starlike object too small to start thermonuclear fusion, so it produces heat and light by contracting; this is the definition according to the International Astronomical Union, the body which defines all astronomical, astrophysical, and cosmological terminology. This is just one of many such errors.
The terminology I had the biggest problem with was the wrongful (indeed, gratuitous) use of the word "creationism." It is relatively apparent that Filkin means the idea that the universe was created at some time, but it is still the wrong word. Either it was placed in there by Filkin (I think unlikely) or the publishers (more likely) to cave to the 45% of this backwards country which seriously believes creationism (in the sense of what the word really means), or (maybe a little more likely)used without thinking. This leads to my next big problem with the book. Rather than sticking to the science, or at least pointing out how science sharply contrasts with "faith," Filkin spends a large amount of time talking about how science and religion (specifically Christianity) go hand-in-hand. He even makes up malicious falsities, frequently claiming that science at least partially supports Christianity (actually, he said it supporst "creationism"), and that important discoveries were held up by the dogma of "atheist scientists." One particularly despicable example is his claim that after Hubble discovered the Hubble flow, its reality and logical conclusions were denied and held back by "atheist scientists," being unwilling to accept the idea that the universe began (and hence doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics). Nothing could be further from the truth! The Hubble flow was looked upon very skeptically for over a decade because the original measurements put the age of the universe as less than the then-known age of the Earth. Lastly, there are the contradictory statements. Filkin often makes statements contrary to the 'evidence' he supports it with, if there is any. One example is as follows: "churchgoing" scientist were shunned and forced to hide their beliefs from the 18th to the 20th centuries because (a) they believed in a moment of creation despite the official church policy that the universe was infinite, (b) the "atheist scientists" believed, like Newton, that the universe was infinite, and (c) these two beliefs (the church's and the atheist concepts) are different. If you were paying attention, you'd know these beliefs are NOT different, and hence not in conflict. I put the book down after a few chapters of being frustrated not learning anything, frequently needing to correct Filkin, and seeing a creationist-propagandist's dream come true (regardless of what Filkin meant, I've seen quotes from this book paraded around by creationists). Finally, I would like to point out my disgust with Hawking for having a book like this sold with his stamp of approval.
Rating: 
Summary: A basic primer, well presented
Review: Stephen Hawking is widely acknowledged as one of the most intelligent persons on the planet, often seen as the intellectual successor to Einstein in reputation if not in actual adherence to theories. This book by David Filkin is a companion to book to a BBC/PBS series by the same name, highlighting different aspects and ideas that came from the television production.
Stephen Hawking's own book, `A Brief History of Time', is a very popular and accessible account of modern theoretical physics - it is somewhat astonishing that a book on this topic should have sold well over 10 million copies worldwide, being translated into many languages. Filkin's book looks not only at the theories (many of which can be found in Hawking's book), but also at the personality of the man behind the ideas. Hawking describes himself as a boy who liked to take things apart to see what made them tick - this is a rather difficult enterprise to undertake when dealing with the universe as a whole.
David Filkin and Stephen Hawking were at Oxford together. Filkin was on the crew team, and Hawking was the cox for the team of eight. Filkin writes of knowing Hawking only peripherally then, but being impressed with his determination, something that has continued to show through in Hawking's life, as he battles debilitating illness. However, as Filkin states, it is easy to get lost in thinking of Hawking in those terms. Hawking is worthy of recognition for his academic achievements in their own right - he holds the mathematics chair at Cambridge that Sir Isaac Newton held (and, as testament to its importance, one of the `future scenes' of Star Trek shows the android Data also hold the same chair, mentioning into the futuristic narrative both Newton and Hawking in the same breath).
Despite this brilliance, Hawking readily admits that much of his model of the universe is not his own. Standing on the shoulders of giants, he sees further, but acknowledges his debts to past scientific research. Filking introduces theories of the universe by looking at past models, everything from `turtles all the way down' to Ptolemaic, Copernican, and more modern ideas. Filkin draws in the major scientists of the progress of science - Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Doppler, and Hubble - and shows a steady progress of science against a backdrop of political, religious and social concerns. The early days of the Hubble discovery of red-shifted light from stars and Einstein's change of view from an eternal, infinite universe to one that had an origin is presented in context of Lemaitre, a cosmologist for the Vatican, who tried to reconcile modern scientific theories with the idea that the universe did have a point or moment of origin; this was not universally accepted (no pun intended), however, as some scientists such as Fred Hoyle continued to argue for an eternal, infinite universe with the Steady State theory.
Beginning with chapter five, and continuing throughout the rest of the text, the real heart of the matter of modern theoretical physics, astronomy and cosmology is presented. Filkin uses both the progress of ideas of Hawking, the progress of technology, and the various personalities involved in the scientific community (most of whom who are presented are still alive and at work) to develop the narrative of understanding the universe. Big Bang theory presented in great detail, including some of the more philosophical/theological concerns involved (while some churches applauded the Big Bang theory because it provided evidence for a moment of creation, others decried it as being contrary to a strict, literal six-day creation interpretation). One of the most intriguing ideas to arise in physics as a part of these developments was the proposition of the black hole, a gravitational oddity that occurs when a supermassive object cannot support its own weight, and the effects on the space-time continuum are so severe that not even light can escape its grasp.
Along the way, Filkin describes in historical and scientific ways the development of ideas of matter (atoms, from ancient Greek thought to modern times), light and energy, dark matter, and more. We learn about WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), MACHO men (Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects observers), SETI research (Search for Extraterrestrial Life), and doing the impossible - locating the elusive black hole. How can you see something no one can see?
The limits of observation also play into the limit of the partnership between theory and observation for cosmology. Filkin writes that, through history, there have been historic pairings (Kepler's theories and Brahe's observations make a classic example), but the limits of nature are bumping up against observational ability, and the theoretical limits of such observatories is being reached - nothing at absolute zero can be detected in and of itself, as absolute zero is the lower limit; similarly, very high temperatures render everything opaque and fuzzy. None of this even begins to deal with the observational issue of the observer changing the status (the uncertainty principle).
There is an interesting duality that arises in cosmology - those who think that our understanding of the universe and its principles is nearly complete (Ed Witten, one of the present-day physicists highlighted, speculates in this direction) and those who think that there is still a vast body of unknown information to be discovered. One cannot help but think of the speculation around the turn of the last century, as nineteenth-century science triumphed in its understanding of various things in the world, and intellectual hubris was so high as to make some consider that patent offices would soon be closing, as everything that would ever be invented already had been. The early twentieth century in science destroyed both the intellectual arrogance and the stability of our understanding of the world, and things have continued at a quickening pace for decades. Have we reached the limits? Time will tell.
Of course, that might be imaginary time (thanks to Richard Feynman).
Rating:
Summary: Best book describing the best cosmological principles
Review: Stephen Hawking's universe is one of the very few books of its kind. It describes the complex and beautiful picture of our cosmos as presented by the most famous living scientist of the world. This book will prove helpful and informative for all those who are concerned with the universe and also with Professor Hawking.
Stephen Hawking's universe is such a book which tends to describe a difficult subject with simplicity and ace. Thus any one out there who is intrested in cosmology and is waiting for a new arrival the please do have a look at this one.
Rating:
Summary: A Brief Version of "A Brief History"
Review: The title "Stephen Hawking's Universe" may give you the wrong impression about this book, because one would naturally associate Stephen Hawking with more in-depth scientific theories. However, this book is in fact no more than an introduction to the histories and discoveries of our universe. That is, it is more of a "tell-tale" than an explanation type of book, and should not be compared with books like "A Brief History of Time" (by Stephen Hawking himself). In terms of presentation, this book does a great job in showing us the discoveries made by various scientists of the past and present in a fairly logical order. The beautiful illustrations used also contribute in helping the readers to understand and to maintain interest in the contents. Nevertheless, at times the author does seem to lose focus on the topics, and they become slightly more difficult to follow. Quite often you have to read on a couple of pages (or even chapters) before you are taken back on track. To summarise, the book provides a clear outline of human's knowledge of the universe in a very graphical manner, and would be suited to those new to such concepts. However, if you are expecting explanation of greater depths, then you will probably be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: A Brief Version of "A Brief History"
Review: The title "Stephen Hawking's Universe" may give you the wrong impression about this book, because one would naturally associate Stephen Hawking with more in-depth scientific theories. However, this book is in fact no more than an introduction to the histories and discoveries of our universe. That is, it is more of a "tell-tale" than an explanation type of book, and should not be compared with books like "A Brief History of Time" (by Stephen Hawking himself). In terms of presentation, this book does a great job in showing us the discoveries made by various scientists of the past and present in a fairly logical order. The beautiful illustrations used also contribute in helping the readers to understand and to maintain interest in the contents. Nevertheless, at times the author does seem to lose focus on the topics, and they become slightly more difficult to follow. Quite often you have to read on a couple of pages (or even chapters) before you are taken back on track. To summarise, the book provides a clear outline of human's knowledge of the universe in a very graphical manner, and would be suited to those new to such concepts. However, if you are expecting explanation of greater depths, then you will probably be disappointed.
|
