Ion Development
Helping you build a brighter future for your child!

• LeapFrog Fridge Farm Magnetic Animal Set
• Crush

5 messages

• 
• 
• 

1. Anonymous - September 10, 2010 at 1:39 pm

   Review by for A Brief History Of Time (Turtleback School & Library Binding Edition)
   Rating:
   Most people know that Hawking is a brilliant physicist, but after reading this book, one develops a respect for his other talents as well. Most noticeable is Stephen Hawking’s ability to make very complicated ideas seem quite clear through good explanations, clear comparisons to real life events, and a soft humor. The organization of chapers mostly follows a chronological order, which gives a sense of history from Aristotle to present day, yet also establishes concepts in an order that builds on itself. One also realizes that A Brief History of Time was written by a writer, not a scientist who happened to put ideas to paper. This makes a big difference in the enjoyment of a book, since good information in a dry, dull form can be difficult to read (remember trying to keep your eyes open while reading a dull textbook in a subject of interest?). On the other hand, interesting information presented in an interesting manner make A Brief History of Time as much of a ‘page-turner’ as physics can be. In summary, a fountain of information from galaxies and black holes to quantum mechanics presented in such a way that is not only as easy to understand as it can be, but is an enjoyable experience to read.
2. Anonymous - September 10, 2010 at 2:25 pm

   Review by for A Brief History Of Time (Turtleback School & Library Binding Edition)
   Rating:
   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.
3. David Blake - September 10, 2010 at 3:15 pm

   Review by David Blake for A Brief History Of Time (Turtleback School & Library Binding Edition)
   Rating:
   Hawking is no master of the written word. Early on, he warns us not to consult his earlier books for more detail – because they are “quite unreadable”. He also admits that, during the production of this book, his editor bombarded him with comments and questions. The impact of this editorial input is plain. The book wallows from unnecessarily long complex sentences written in the passive sense to snappy anecdotes from Hawking’s life. I found the early chapters very useful as overviews of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. The middle chapters – on black holes and the origin of the Universe – were clearly written with enthusiasm. However, that enthusiasm seemed to fade towards the end of the book. The chapter on the arrows of time seems to have been lifted from an old speech. Here’s what I’m about to tell you: this is what I’m saying: this is what I’ve just told you. Also, the explanation of the cosmological arrow of time left a lot of questions hanging. Question: What will happen when the Universe starts to contract – will people start to experience time running backwards? Answer: Intelligent life could not exist because, by then, all the stars will have burned out. Well, OK – but does that answer whether time is in reverse or not? Chapter 10 introduces string theory. Clearly this is an incredibly complicated subject and not capable of being explained in a book entitled “Brief History”. However, the way the subject is introduced and then dropped is tantalising. Apparently, string theories are only consistent if space-time has either ten or twenty-six dimensions. All these extra dimensions are curled up into space of a very small size. I, for one, would have liked more explanation of what that means. In summary, a useful but frustrating book that varies in tone as the pages turn. I feel a better populist book would have resulted if Hawking had used a ghost writer to interpret his ideas, rather than simply submitting his own words to the scrutiny of an editor.
4. Anthony T. Lam - September 10, 2010 at 4:09 pm

   Review by Anthony T. Lam for A Brief History Of Time (Turtleback School & Library Binding Edition)
   Rating:
   Hawking’s story makes him a media favorite. The press (who know minimal physics if any) have for years given him the title “Greatest Physicist Since Einstein”. He is an excellent physicist and a decent teacher but he is nowhere near being in the same league as Einstein, Newton or Maxwell. Paul Dirac and Richard Feynman are arguably the two most distinguished 20th Century physicists after Einstein. Ed Witten may be the most distinguished living physicist.

   Richard Feynman (through his lectures transcribed on audiocassette/text formats and books) is perhaps physics’s greatest teacher for the layperson and expert alike. Feynman had an unmatched knack for explaining high level physics in an original way. His “Lectures on Physics” is a classic and should be on the bookshelves of all physicists. Feynman’s QED is the best non-mathematical description of quantum mechanics ever (QED stands for quantum electrodynamics, for which Feynman shared the Nobel Prize). His book, The Character of Physical Law, covers much of the same material as Brief History but is much clearer and more insightful. You won’t have to unlearn anything from Feynman’s books even if you decide to pursue a PhD in physics. I cannot say the same for Hawking’s books. Read reviews on these and Feynman’s other works. Also, Feynman lived an inspirational and incredibly rich life. He had the brains of Einstein, the showmanship of a performer (which made him a great teacher) and just a great love and wonder for life in general. Read reviews on “Surely You’re Joking, Mr Feynman” and “Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman” for more details. You won’t regret it.

   For those who want to read about what many physicists view as the best candidate for a “theory of everything”, read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. Hyperspace by Michio Kaku is another great book of the same vane. For those interested in a complete description of physical law, read the Road To Reality by Roger Penrose.
   
5. Anonymous - September 10, 2010 at 4:54 pm

   Review by for A Brief History Of Time (Turtleback School & Library Binding Edition)
   Rating:
   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.