|
 The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory :: 0375708111
Description
| Product Description |
|
| There is an ill-concealed skeleton in the closet of physics: "As they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right." Each is exceedingly accurate in its field: general relativity explains the behavior of the universe at large scales, while quantum mechanics describes the behavior of subatomic particles. Yet the theories collide horribly under extreme conditions such as black holes or times close to the big bang. Brian Greene, a specialist in quantum field theory, believes that the two pillars of physics can be reconciled in superstring theory, a theory of everything. Superstring theory has been called "a part of 21st-century physics that fell by chance into the 20th century." In other words, it isn't all worked out yet. Despite the uncertainties--"string theorists work to find approximate solutions to approximate equations"--Greene gives a tour of string theory solid enough to satisfy the scientifically literate. Though Ed Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study is in many ways the human hero of The Elegant Universe, it is not a human-side-of-physics story. Greene's focus throughout is the science, and he gives the nonspecialist at least an illusion of understanding--or the sense of knowing what it is that you don't know. And that is traditionally the first step on the road to knowledge. --Mary Ellen Curtin Editorial Descriptions are usually submitted by the manufacturers, publishers and authors. Contact us if you are one of them, and wish to change the above description. |
Reviews
Customer feedback
|
|
Voting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Guest
I understand that this is a hard and involved subject. There are many building blocks to understand before one can get to string theory. I found myself getting sidetracked rather often, looking up addtional information on the topics. I think he did a decent job laying out the information, but I would have liked a little more detail. I find the theory interesting, but I could not get through the book. I got frustrated with the techinical parts. If you are going to read this, make sure you have a basic understanding of physics before you do.
|
Author: Guest
The Elegant Universe is an elegantly written book. It deals with material that most of us find formidably difficult and explains it in terms that any intelligent reader should be able to understand. Greene's exposition of Relativity is as good as any I've ever read, and the same goes for his explanations of quantum phenomena and the reasoning behind Quantum Mechanics.
I think the portion of the book that deals with string theory is a little less elegant. Greene effectively lays out the basic concept of strings vibrating in many dimensions, and he explains how the concept can unite Relativity and QM. But the presentation is just a bit more opaque, just a bit less convincing than the earlier material. This isn't surprising given that string theory is much more speculative.
Greene's passion for string theory seems to me more aesthetic and philosophical than scientific. He's not the only physicist I've heard argue in favor of simple and elegant equations to describe the universe, but it isn't clear that the universe needs to comply with our desire for elegance. That physical laws seem governed by mathematics is surprising and elegant enough; there's no physical reason for the resulting mathematical equations be elegant. Until it starts generating testable hypotheses, string theory will more properly belong in the realm of philosophy than in that of science. I think it's a fascinating and potentially fruitful bit of philosophy - it may yet become science - and I'm glad a working physicist in the field has written so approachable a book on it.
|
Author: Guest
First let me state that I am in fact a layperson with little background in this area beyond high school chemistry and precalculus but as a dyed in the wool agnostic and philosophical "materialist" with a certain concomitant contrarian hostility to religion, I have always had problems with these conceptions or at least their popular explications and the trendy "post-modern" frivolous adulation heaped upon them which I see as pandering to mystical and non-rational inclinations of people, albeit in a sophisticated and perhaps unwitting way. Thus the ridiculous and wholly unscientific movie "What the Bleep is This" that touts quantum mechanics as a New Age doctrine and realm of the inexplicable and supernatural.
Years ago I was in a stock argument with a religious believer over evolution and religous belief generally during which my interlocutor commented that since I hadn't personally done the science my view was also a "faith based" position. Upon reflecting on this point, I had to concede it was a cogent one, and my later response was that modern science and its accomplishments have earned more crediblity in my mind which struggles to operate on the basis of reason, or at least common sense, the lowest form thereof. Thus, it is important that people retain this perspective and view novel theories with skepticism, demanding evidentiary proof and not accept such postulates as received dogma, particularly where such views are not generally accepted within the scientific community.
This individual and his theories first came to my attention when an article by him was published in the New York Times which together with an accompanying illustration purported to show that time itself can be "warped" or vary at extreme conditions of speed (i.e that of light). The proof was that the clock or "nano-clocks" parts would stress in a way to cause it to mark or measure time in a manner different than it otherwise would. This immediately struck me as suspect, both as a rational person trained in logic and with my intuition as a former seaman and mariner. In the latter capacity I was very much aware of how stresses of speed and motion effect machines at sea and that in the 18th century, as decribed in the book "Longitude" a great prize was given by the Royal Society to the person who could construct a gimbled clock to measure time most accurately in this unstable environment for purposes of navigation.
Thus, to me, the author's hypothetical does not hang together logically and fails on its own terms consitent with many of his observations that hinge on subjective differences in perception based on point of reference, a methodology that seems wholly inconsistent with the scientific method. To me it seems obvious, consistent with classical physics and reason, that time is an intangible abstraction that is an immaterial, but quantifiable, parameter of the universe or physical reality, one that is immutable and unaffected by any material conditions, no matter how extreme. Thus an abstract unit of measurement of that quality, like those of weights and measures will not vary: an inch is an inch anywhere etc. A second is a second consistently no matter what effects extreme material conditions would have on clocks, yardsticks or any other human measuring devices as for one thing these qualities existed long before humans arrived to subjectively contemplate them whether while on the head of a steam locomotive, a beam of light (and what's the evidence for the supposition that the speed of light is an absolute limit on speed anymore than sound is?) or any other vector. Moreover, it bears keeping in mind that humans' units of time are measured in terms of astronomical events. Thus a day is the time the earth takes to rotate once, with a second being a fraction thereof so obviously whatever a particular individual or object is encountering somewhere at a particular rate of speed will not change that fraction etc. This was at the heart of the problem with nautical navigation and the accurate measure of time which is, in short, a fixed constant.
I really wish I had the time to actually personally do the math and science to explore this as it seems inconsitent as does-to borrow an idiom from the ancient Greeks-that the universe is expanding? why? because if you mean universe as the sum total of all matter and space then you've presuuposed the exitence of "non-space" that it is expanding into. Rather, perhaps it is the sum total set and range of collective human empirical observations that is expanding on a daily basis. And, consistent with that, so what if there's 3 degree Kelvin background radiation everywhere humans can percieve. Is it possible that this represents merely the locality of human perception in a much larger set? Imagine you're an amoeba or other small life form in a body of water that an exponentially large object fell into previously-like the asteriod of 30 million years ago. Or insects in the Sahara Desert who conclude the universe is composed of sand and expanding or small animals on an island where a nuclear test was conducted reaching conclusion about a big bang. Your observations would find ripples and other shock waves omnipresent and moving outward-together with the water itself-from your point of reference and you might concude therefore that this event was and is the genesis of all that is-ignoring that for every effect there must be a cause and that for every day there was a yesterday. All we know in that regard, I humbly submit, is that a large explosion occurred in the distant past, evidence of which can be found-allegedly-everywhere within the present range of human perception. Who knows what exists exponentially farther down range from us is we were to travel infinitely like the Energizer Bunny. To say that there is no pre-history to this ostensible event seems to be a supposition influenced by a subtle religious mode of thinking.
So skip the "religious experience" and give us some evidence. Otherwise the impression is given that, like "Intelligent Design", a semi or psuedo scientific rationale or gloss for religious belief is working on the public psyche.
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to address these issues.
|
Author: Guest
Not only serves as the best ever introduction to the difficult subject of string theory, it deftly explains Newtonian, Einsteinian, Maxwellian and Quantum in the build up.
Not to be mistaken for his follow up book: the Fabric of the Cosmos, nor for the dumbed down PBS special. A book that doesn't talk down to you, entertains and informs.
|
Author: Guest
I was mainly interested in learning more about string theory after having seen the PBS special by the same title hosted by Brian Greene (available on DVD). Although the string theory was very tough to understand and I'm sure I didn't understand deeply most of what I read, I was pleasantly surprised in an unexpected way. Before even touching on string theory, Greene reviews special and general relativity. After having read a few books by Stephen Hawking amongst others over the years, I never felt I had an intuitive or gut sense of some of the central tenets of relativity. After having read this book, I feel like I finally do have a real intuition about a number of the core ideas behind relativity (like why things cannot travel faster than the speed of light, why time slows down for stuff traveling closer and closer to the speed of light, how time is considered a fourth dimension on equal footing with three spatial ones we know and love).
All of the material that was new to me--the meat of string theory--I'm still fuzzy on. However, I believe that's my problem and not the book's. As much as I pontificate Calabi-Yau shapes, for instance, my mind is just not ready to grasp how extra dimensions figure into our world in any way other than by their very existence.
To be momentarily shallow, Brian Greene must be the biggest hottie in physics. Not just because he's cute and smart, but because he possesses an ability that few super-geeks do: he has a mastery of the English language that few technical (what an understatement!) people ever achieve. And as much as people still might be scratching their heads after having read this book--few men other than Greene could have brought such specialized matter to the layman.
|
Send to Friend
Send to friend
|
|
