More Details Original Title. Other Editions Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about The Elegant Universe , please sign up. Is this written so that a non-science-geek can understand it? Leo Navis It is described very easily, actually.
You will have to concentrate of course, but the examples are easy to understand. He takes another route, if you …more It is described very easily, actually. He takes another route, if you want. He doesn't try to teach you math but to show you through easy every-day-examples the concepts behind Einstein, Standardmodell and String-Theory. Is this good? Abdurrahman Hassouna How can i get it? S : I'm from Morocco …more How can i get it? S : I'm from Morocco less. See all 7 questions about The Elegant Universe….
Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 4. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Smolin's The Trouble with Physics , which I read much more recently, suggests that string theory is in big trouble, and right now I am more tempted to side with Smolin. There's this old Nasrudin story, where he's somehow ended up as judge in a court case.
The D. Then the defense lawyer gets up and makes his pitch, and Nasrudin is equally impressed. The court recorder clears his throat and leans over towards Nasrudin. Nasrudin shakes his head.
Am I just agreeing with Smolin because I heard him most recently? But trying to correct for that, I still think that there is a reason why Smolin seems more convincing and memorable, and why very little of what Greene says has stuck. String theory has become so divorced from experimental reality that it rarely if ever gives you that feeling you get from good science, of suddenly grasping a real physical phenomenon that you have known about for a while, but not understood.
I guess the example that makes me least happy is supersymmetry, according to which every particle has a supersymmetric partner. Compare this with the discovery of the periodic table in the late 19th century, or the development of the Standard Theory in the 60s and 70s. There, insightful people gradually realized that objects atoms in the first case, subatomic particles in the second were related in a complicated pattern.
Most of the time the pattern fit, but there were a few holes, and they were later able to find the things new elements, new particles that filled in the holes! I was astonished to read that there is not one single particle which has a known supersymmetric partner - so far, it's all hypothesis, and perhaps none of these "selectrons", "photinos" etc actually exist. I'm not saying that this means supersymmetry is wrong; I'm just saying it means I don't find it exciting.
Maybe next year they will get the LHC working, discover a whole slew of supersymmetric partners even one would be a lot , and put string theory on a proper experimental footing. If that happens, I'm sure I'll go back to reading books on this subject; I won't be able to stop myself.
But until then, well, it may be beautiful math, but I feel no emotional connection to it. I'd love to hear from people who disagree, and can explain to me just what it is I'm missing out on. He'd come mainly to play chess, but when I found out that he was involved in looking for supersymmetric particles I took the opportunity to ask how it was going.
Well: assuming he's to be trusted, and he sounded pretty knowledgeable on the subject, we should know pretty soon. The LHC is now up to high enough energies. They're collecting data. If supersymmetric particles exist, there is every reason to suppose that we'll have clear evidence of them within a year or two. I wondered what would happen if they didn't find any supersymmetric particles? Would the theoreticians just retreat into saying that they needed a more powerful collider?
Not so, said my informant; if the particles can't be found at the current range of energies, the predictions were wrong. Sounds like we're finally getting a straight up-or-down vote.
String theory, you can run but you can't hide! We had yet another particle physicist over, whose PhD topic had been something to do with searching for a supersymmetric quark. I asked her if it really was the case that we'd soon know if supersymmetric particles existed.
Alas, it turns out that, although the energies they're now reaching in the LHC are indeed sufficient to find supersymmetric particle according to the mainstream versions of string theory, there are other versions which predict higher energies - energies which are outside the LHC's range. If they retreat to one of the other versions, then most of the rationale disappears. But people have a lot riding on string theory. She just shrugged her shoulders.
Consulting Google Scholar, my impression is that the book is highly respected: I see citations. Eight years later, no supersymmetric particles have been observed. But no doubt string theorists have an explanation for this inconvenient fact. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, there's the dog that didn't bark in the night. Many physicists were also expecting to find supersymmetric particles, but none have been detected.
This greatly weakens the plausibility of string theory and shifts attention to competing theories for unifying quantum mechanics and gravity, of which by far the most attractive is Loop Quantum Gravity. It's a pity that all research funding isn't allocated in such a responsible manner.
For reasons that are not important to us here, these hypothetical particles are called superpartners. Well, there it is again.
It hasn't found them. View all comments. Do I understand string theory? Not sure. Do I understand M theory? A little bit but don't ask for any algebraic reasoning.
Do I know exactly what a Calabi-Yau is? Not really but I think they look a little like the hair balls from my cat. This is the second time I've equated quantum physics and all its detours to a hair-ball. That's because I can study a hair ball and still have no idea what it is for and why they exist.
String Theory and the elusive TOE is in the same category. I could go on my Do I understand string theory? I could go on my entire life not knowing about them but now that I do, I need to know why. Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, and my cat can't all be right.
Or can they? That is essentially the dilemma of string theory and the book. Greene does a great job of putting everything in layman's term but there is a point which he must exceed the intellectual ionosphere and soar into the incalculable. I really like this type of book. The challenge is the fun. But rest assured when the scientists get their act together and write an Idiot's guide to The Unified Theory Of Everything, I'll be the first in line. Hair balls and string theories have something else in common.
Once you tore one apart, you can never get your hands clean. View all 5 comments. I left Christianity a few years ago and swore off religion altogether; however, after reading this book, string theory has become tantamount to religion in my life.
Brian Greene writes beautifully about particles, planets, and the origins of our universe as we know it today. It is a heavy book- I don't recommend it for anyone who wants a quick, easy read. It took me almost two months to get through, but I learned a tremendous amount and came away in complete awe of the world and the forces at wo I left Christianity a few years ago and swore off religion altogether; however, after reading this book, string theory has become tantamount to religion in my life.
It took me almost two months to get through, but I learned a tremendous amount and came away in complete awe of the world and the forces at work in it today. Since Green wrote his book string theory has come under intense scrutiny; despite this, I would still support this book on the basis that it is gorgeously written, based in fact many of the experiments and proofs were done by Greene himself , and incredibly informative. A vertible Bible of where we came from, where we're going and the incredibly complex way things function in this glorious universe of ours.
View 1 comment. Oct 18, picoas picoas rated it it was ok Shelves: If you're into stuff like this, you can read the full review. Mathematics, My Daddy says is simply a game or a toy for the mind. I enjoy playing with math though I truly know now that it is not Universal Knowledge. Mathematics is like some sports. It brings Me fun and excitement. As you all can see, all the so called greatest mathematicians and scientists and physicists humans' scholars humans gave so much high regards to have immediately realized that all those books and all those studies and all those "humans once thought of as knowledge" became child's play if not garbage right upon My Daddy revealed this Universal Truth and Knowledge.
Literally speaking, humans are among the most primitive civilizations in The Universe and yet we humans are very arrogant, sinful and blasphemous because we, humans do not know any better. To think I put all that effort to understand a discredited theory View all 21 comments.
Mar 26, Daniel Clausen rated it it was amazing Shelves: books-of For most of my life, physics and the general sciences have seemed beyond me. At the same time, I've been lucky enough in high school and university to have instructors who are willing to let me "give science a try" in a not threatening way.
This book is one such attempt to allow ordinary people to give science a try. In this book, you'll get a crash course in physics as an evolving subject, from the theory of gravity, to special relativity, to general relativity, to quantum mechanics, to string For most of my life, physics and the general sciences have seemed beyond me.
In this book, you'll get a crash course in physics as an evolving subject, from the theory of gravity, to special relativity, to general relativity, to quantum mechanics, to string theory, you'll be taken on a fantastic journey into the heart of science.
A word of warning, though, one of my geeky friends told me that "String Theory" is now a passing fad. That might put you off the book. I still felt like there was a lot of value in reading this book simply as a mental challenge.
The book was challenging to read, even if it is supposed to be dumbed down physics. There is a great quote to the effect that "if you can't explain a subject in non-technical terms so that a lay person can understand it than you haven't really mastered the subject yourself.
For such a complicated and often "non intuitive" subject, Greene does an excellent job of laying o 4. For such a complicated and often "non intuitive" subject, Greene does an excellent job of laying out in understandable terms: 1 the evolution of special relativity into general relativity; 2 the basics of quantum dynamics; 3 the fundamental conflict between general relativity and quantum dynamics; and 4 the amazing development of string theory and 5 the prospects for string theory to be able to resolve the conflcit between general relativity and quantum mechanics and come up with a Unified Theory of Everything the fabled TOE.
Now even with Greene's fantastic explanations, once we got beyond the basics of string theory and onto such concepts as 10 "spatial" dimensions, mirror symmetry and Calabi-Yau manifolds, there were times when the subject matter was just difficult to grasp on an intuitive level.
However, Greene was quick to point out that the reader i. It also made me interested in learning more. Shelves: to-re-read , science , , physics. I close the covers of The Elegant Universe with powerfully mixed feelings. On the one hand, Brian Greene gives us a lucidly-written layman's-terms explanation for high-concept modern physics, providing an excellent survey of 20th century science and painting a vivid picture of a promising strategy for reconciling the discrepancies in the otherwise dominant theories.
On the other hand, about half-way through the text, it devolves into what feels like a navel-gazing vanity project that fails to connect that promising strategy with the target audience i. To be clear: the first third of the book is a remarkable accomplishment. Details Edit.
Release date October 28, United States. United States United Kingdom. The Theory of Everything. Technical specs Edit. Runtime 1 hour. Related news. Oct 25 Indiewire. Oct 19 BroadwayWorld. Contribute to this page Suggest an edit or add missing content. Edit page. Hollywood Icons, Then and Now. See the gallery. Watch the video. See my other review on cosmos. I finally feel I understand the reasoning behind those concepts. The rest of the book is a little harder to keep up with.
It seems like Mr. Or, maybe those older concepts are just better understood by the physicists themselves, I couldn't tell. He mentions that he wrote this book for the retiree who didn't have time while working to understand the new advances in physics. I was that guy.
He does a great job. I've listened to his other books and am amazed how he goes to great pains and creates new analogies in explaining complex physical principals.
Each of his books stand on their own and he avoids repetition. The book will excite you about string theory, but you will be dismayed by the current lack of progress in string theory since the book was originally written.
As a non astrophysicist, I'll be rereading this about a dozen times to better understand the more abstract concepts that require a background in mathematics to fully appreciate.
However, Brian Greene does an amazing job using analogies to explain string theory for the previously uninitiated. Very technical, quite hard to take in at times, but mind bending and perspective changing once you get it, a fantastic collection of information allowing someone like me, shocking at maths, get to grips with the depths of cosmology. For me, rolling with much of the narrative was an act of faith. The book iwas worth the effort and felt like a fantastic journey through a world that, till now, had remained inaccessible to me.
I think this is the fourth time I'm listening to it. Finding it very interesting. This book amazed me and helped grow my understanding of everyday reality. Great for anyone. The performance is extremely professional and the voice is not obtrusive, which is crucial since the topic is complex.
Brian Greene's development of the theory is as clear as it can be, and there is a lot to learn. The topic itself is captivating: the attempt of super strings theory to unify quantum mechanics and relativity in a single interpretation that explain the macro- and microcosmos.
I am not convinced of the arguments he uses with average culture readers like me: our super string theory MUST be true because it is so cool, nevermind we have never managed to hook it to experimental confirmation, forget about its forced interpretations and its ugly maths, the idea is elegant and we spent 40 years on this bet so it needs to work at all costs.
I got a lot of this vibe, while Carlo Rovelli's popularisation of the alternative loop quantum gravity theory always seems more humble and tentative, which I found endearing and more convincing. Worth the listen overall. Add to Cart failed. Please try again later. Add to Wish List failed. Remove from wishlist failed. Adding to library failed. Please try again. Follow podcast failed. Unfollow podcast failed. Stream or download thousands of included titles. Narrated by: Erik Davies.
No default payment method selected. Add payment method. Switch payment method. We are sorry. We are not allowed to sell this product with the selected payment method. Pay using card ending in. Taxes where applicable. Listeners also enjoyed Drezner Length: 12 hrs and 17 mins Original Recording Overall. Publisher's Summary In a rare blend of scientific insight and writing as elegant as the theories it explains, one of the world's leading string theorists peels away the layers of mystery surrounding string theory to reveal a universe that consists of 11 dimensions where the fabric of space tears and repairs itself, and all matter-from the smallest quarks to the most gargantuan supernovas-is generated by the vibrations of microscopically tiny loops of energy.
Cosmology Physics. Critic Reviews " The Elegant Universe is compulsively readable Greene threatens to do for string theory what Stephen Hawking did for black holes. In the great tradition of physicists writing for the masses, The Elegant Universe sets a standard that will be hard to beat. The Elegant Universe presents the ideas and aspirations-and some of the characters-of string theory with clarity and charm.
Reviews - Please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews. Amazon Reviews. Enter pincode. Usually delivered in 3 days? Greene Brian. AmazingBuy 4. Frequently Bought Together. The Elegant Universe. The Fabric of the Cosmos. Physics of the Impossible. Add 3 Items to Cart. Rate Product. This is one of the best books on modern physics written for a layman.
Brian Greene takes a patient, lucid, interesting steps in making the reader understand the concepts of relativity and quantum physics before moving on to string theory and the idea of unification.
The pacing done well, and ideas are communicated well. Sometimes the readers may feel ideas to be little too diluted, it's not frequent. Although this book is quite dogmatic about string theory, it makes an excellent read for u I had a deep and unwavering interest in Modern Physics.
Right since the JEE times, till the present day. One field which I always wanted to go through in the subject was the advent and ascent of String theory. And finally, I found a perfect book to satiate my thirst.
0コメント