Call number
530.142 HAW
Collection
Publication
Bantam (2010), 208 pages
Description
Along with Caltech physicist Mlodinow (The Drunkard's Walk), University of Cambridge cosmologist Hawking (A Brief History of Time) deftly mixes cutting-edge physics to answer three key questions-- Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? Why this particular set of laws and not some other?-- and explains that scientists are approaching what is called "M-theory," a collection of overlapping theories (including string theory) that fill in many (but not all) the blank spots in quantum physics. This collection is known as the "Grand Unified Field Theories."
Media reviews
It is all entertaining stuff, skilfully assembled and described in a fairly droll manner. The wave-particle duality of particles is described as being as foreign as drinking a chunk of sandstone, for example. The book is also commendably brief and by and large illuminating about the complexities of
Show More
modern cosmology. Show Less
It is all entertaining stuff, skilfully assembled and described in a fairly droll manner. The wave-particle duality of particles is described as being as foreign as drinking a chunk of sandstone, for example. The book is also commendably brief and by and large illuminating about the complexities of
Show More
modern cosmology.
So read it to understand the universe. But if it is God you are after, my advice is to steer clear. Show Less
The real news about “The Grand Design,” however, isn’t Mr. Hawking’s supposed jettisoning of God, information that will surprise no one who has followed his work closely. The real news about “The Grand Design” is how disappointingly tinny and inelegant it is. The spare and earnest voice
Show More
that Mr. Hawking employed with such appeal in “A Brief History of Time” has been replaced here by one that is alternately condescending, as if he were Mr. Rogers explaining rain clouds to toddlers, and impenetrable. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member rybie2
Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time reportedly was one of the most purchased, most displayed, and least read scientific books of the late 1980s. Although the book contained no mathematics and minimal technical vocabulary, many readers found its concepts difficult to comprehend. (In fact, none
The Grand Design succeeds where that book arguably did not, and what's more, brings to a general readership the stunning implications of contemporary physics and cosmology. The book is clearly written, contains helpful diagrams, and enough corny humor to keep things light. Any difficulties in comprehension reflect the fact that the concepts themselves are counter-intuitive and far from easy to grasp. The universe turns out to be a very strange place indeed; and in fact, if the authors are correct, ours is but one of an infinite number of universes, in which every conceivable event has happened.
Given that The Grand Design removes the necessity for a divine creator, one may feel compelled to ask: what percentage of the infinite number of universes would include a god or gods? And then, an unrelated question. With an infinite number of universes (many of which apparently lasted no more than a few seconds), do we not have a process of natural selection operating on a cosmic scale, such that our universe exists because it has succeeded where others have failed? Wouldn't it be both funny and ironic if our universe's persistence for the past 13.7 billion years (just like our presence on this small planet in a tiny solar system) reflects a form of cosmic evolution and natural selection?
The Grand Design is a book that raises as many questions as it answers. It is a book that deserves to be read and understood, and if its radical implications take a while to sink in, we can take heart in the likelihood that our particular universe seems unlikely to disappear anytime soon. So far, at least, we're one of the lucky ones.
Show More
other than a spokesman for the Pope mistakenly proclaimed that it demonstrated the necessity for a belief in God as the divine entity that began the universe). The Grand Design succeeds where that book arguably did not, and what's more, brings to a general readership the stunning implications of contemporary physics and cosmology. The book is clearly written, contains helpful diagrams, and enough corny humor to keep things light. Any difficulties in comprehension reflect the fact that the concepts themselves are counter-intuitive and far from easy to grasp. The universe turns out to be a very strange place indeed; and in fact, if the authors are correct, ours is but one of an infinite number of universes, in which every conceivable event has happened.
Given that The Grand Design removes the necessity for a divine creator, one may feel compelled to ask: what percentage of the infinite number of universes would include a god or gods? And then, an unrelated question. With an infinite number of universes (many of which apparently lasted no more than a few seconds), do we not have a process of natural selection operating on a cosmic scale, such that our universe exists because it has succeeded where others have failed? Wouldn't it be both funny and ironic if our universe's persistence for the past 13.7 billion years (just like our presence on this small planet in a tiny solar system) reflects a form of cosmic evolution and natural selection?
The Grand Design is a book that raises as many questions as it answers. It is a book that deserves to be read and understood, and if its radical implications take a while to sink in, we can take heart in the likelihood that our particular universe seems unlikely to disappear anytime soon. So far, at least, we're one of the lucky ones.
Show Less
LibraryThing member stellarexplorer
That Hawking describes contemporary physics in an authoritative voice should surprise no one. That he considers himself an expert on philosophy as well was less expected. The attitude is made manifest on the first page:
"Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.
Such outrageous condescension would be rude effrontery were it not so naive. There is no evidence in the text that Hawking and Mlodinow have based their conclusion on even a cursory familiarity with another academic discipline. And yet they are willing to proclaim one discipline dead, supplanted by their own. And in a bizarre twist, it turns out that they strive ultimately to draw philosophical conclusions in this book rather than scientific ones.
Hawking and Mlodinow's grand design is incoherent, biased and offensive.
"Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.
Show More
Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge".Such outrageous condescension would be rude effrontery were it not so naive. There is no evidence in the text that Hawking and Mlodinow have based their conclusion on even a cursory familiarity with another academic discipline. And yet they are willing to proclaim one discipline dead, supplanted by their own. And in a bizarre twist, it turns out that they strive ultimately to draw philosophical conclusions in this book rather than scientific ones.
Hawking and Mlodinow's grand design is incoherent, biased and offensive.
Show Less
LibraryThing member paradoxosalpha
The Grand Design is certainly designed to appeal to a wide market: the authors assume no knowledge of history or physics on the part of their readers. If you know what a photon is (70), or that Democritus proposed the atom (21), then you’re already a little ahead of the game that they offer. But
The press junket for The Grand Design has tended to play up its potential for conflict with religious world-views. Strangely, though, the text actually picks a fight with philosophers. In their opening page, Hawking and Mlodinow proclaim, "philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics." But what the authors think of as "science, particularly physics" is still what used to be called natural philosophy, for very good reason. Hawking and Mlodinow are really taking the traditional philosophical side--as opposed to the theological side--in the debate about how questions about natural origins should be answered. There's no question that Hawking and Mlodinow know their physics, but they evidently don't know religion or modern theoretical philosophy, and their attempts to pass judgment on those fields are unimpressive. For instance, in what is mostly a capable dash through the history of science, they remark that "at the time the Bible was written people believed the earth was flat." But "the time the Bible was written" was roughly a millennium that coincided with some of the developments in Greek cosmology discussed by Hawking and Mlodinow. It’s likely that some biblical authors thought the earth was flat; but for most, we don’t even know.
Read charitably, the central thesis announced at the outset of The Grand Design is that physics has made metaphysics obsolete. And certainly modern physics has made many earlier metaphysical solutions obsolete. It may even have substantially transformed some questions—particularly the ones about cosmic origins at stake in the later parts of this book. But it’s not true that the natural sciences have answered all or even most metaphysical queries. And if metaphysics as a whole is a wrong turn—as it may in fact be—then that needs to be concluded on the basis of a greater understanding of the history and contents of philosophy than Hawking and Mlodinow have on display.
At its close, the book is underwhelming. We are told that M-Theory is the only current candidate for a comprehensive theory of physical forces, and this theory implies a narrative of cosmic origins. But M-Theory hasn’t been empirically verified. So what is evidently supposed to be a sweeping declaration in the final paragraph has to be stated in the subjunctive. That’s not my kind of “great perhaps.”
Show More
writing at such a primer level entails great responsibility to be both engaging and accurate. As for being engaging, the book is full of what my Other Reader called lame professor jokes, the sort that aren’t really about the subject at hand and aren’t very funny, but seem intended to demonstrate that a presenter of essentially dry material actually has a sense of humor.The press junket for The Grand Design has tended to play up its potential for conflict with religious world-views. Strangely, though, the text actually picks a fight with philosophers. In their opening page, Hawking and Mlodinow proclaim, "philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics." But what the authors think of as "science, particularly physics" is still what used to be called natural philosophy, for very good reason. Hawking and Mlodinow are really taking the traditional philosophical side--as opposed to the theological side--in the debate about how questions about natural origins should be answered. There's no question that Hawking and Mlodinow know their physics, but they evidently don't know religion or modern theoretical philosophy, and their attempts to pass judgment on those fields are unimpressive. For instance, in what is mostly a capable dash through the history of science, they remark that "at the time the Bible was written people believed the earth was flat." But "the time the Bible was written" was roughly a millennium that coincided with some of the developments in Greek cosmology discussed by Hawking and Mlodinow. It’s likely that some biblical authors thought the earth was flat; but for most, we don’t even know.
Read charitably, the central thesis announced at the outset of The Grand Design is that physics has made metaphysics obsolete. And certainly modern physics has made many earlier metaphysical solutions obsolete. It may even have substantially transformed some questions—particularly the ones about cosmic origins at stake in the later parts of this book. But it’s not true that the natural sciences have answered all or even most metaphysical queries. And if metaphysics as a whole is a wrong turn—as it may in fact be—then that needs to be concluded on the basis of a greater understanding of the history and contents of philosophy than Hawking and Mlodinow have on display.
At its close, the book is underwhelming. We are told that M-Theory is the only current candidate for a comprehensive theory of physical forces, and this theory implies a narrative of cosmic origins. But M-Theory hasn’t been empirically verified. So what is evidently supposed to be a sweeping declaration in the final paragraph has to be stated in the subjunctive. That’s not my kind of “great perhaps.”
Show Less
LibraryThing member StephenBarkley
Physics is one of those fields where you can’t rely on information you learned a decade ago. In The Grand Design, Hawking & Mlodinow lay out the current state of physics with an eye towards the holy grail: the Theory of Everything.
Unless physics is your field, you’ll need to concentrate while
Hawking and Mlodinow took a couple of frustrating pot-shots at straw-man Christianity. When they offered the odd side-remark, I found myself agreeing with them—and disappointed that they perpetuated some of those irritating stereotypes about Christians.
The climax of the book is an overview of M-Theory, the leading candidate for the Theory of Everything. For Hawking and Mlodinow, if M-Theory is tested and accepted, the universe needs no designer—it’s self-replicating. That’s where I have to disagree on logical grounds.
Christian apologists have often offered the question, “If our universe began at the big bang, what or who came before it?” Hawking and Mlodinow rightly turn that logic back by asking, “If God came before the big bang, who came before God?” That response cuts both ways, though. If the idea of a self-running universe with no beginning or ending is proven true, the question still exists, “what or who came before?” In the end, that’s a question that neither science nor theology can answer. Your worldview will determine your answer: where does your faith (trust, belief) lie?
I should make it clear that the last few paragraphs about the intersection of science and religion are far from the centre of The Grand Design. The book is a brilliant example of popular scholarship that should be read by any human being who looks into the sky at night and asks questions.
Unless physics is your field, you’ll need to concentrate while
Show More
reading this book. That said, it’s remarkably readable. Three or so quiet hours is all you need to be appraised of the current state of (our understanding of) the universe. There’s enough humor mixed in to make your education more of a joy than a chore. (For example, apparently the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything isn’t 42!)Hawking and Mlodinow took a couple of frustrating pot-shots at straw-man Christianity. When they offered the odd side-remark, I found myself agreeing with them—and disappointed that they perpetuated some of those irritating stereotypes about Christians.
The climax of the book is an overview of M-Theory, the leading candidate for the Theory of Everything. For Hawking and Mlodinow, if M-Theory is tested and accepted, the universe needs no designer—it’s self-replicating. That’s where I have to disagree on logical grounds.
Christian apologists have often offered the question, “If our universe began at the big bang, what or who came before it?” Hawking and Mlodinow rightly turn that logic back by asking, “If God came before the big bang, who came before God?” That response cuts both ways, though. If the idea of a self-running universe with no beginning or ending is proven true, the question still exists, “what or who came before?” In the end, that’s a question that neither science nor theology can answer. Your worldview will determine your answer: where does your faith (trust, belief) lie?
I should make it clear that the last few paragraphs about the intersection of science and religion are far from the centre of The Grand Design. The book is a brilliant example of popular scholarship that should be read by any human being who looks into the sky at night and asks questions.
Show Less
LibraryThing member IronMike
It is important that great thinkers write for a general audience. Einstein did it, and Hawking continues the tradition. Brian Greene is another who does; and so is Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking's co-author of The Grand Design. Others try, but their efforts soar above most of our pedestrian heads, for
The book is not perfect. Every few pages one finds a lame cartoon. These cartoons are...well: lame. They are not amusing, and are not connected to the text. The illustrations are an improvement, but even here I pause and wonder. On page 54 there is an illustration of a glass of water with a straw in it. The illustration is very nice. I particularly like the red & white tablecloth upon which the glass rests. The note beneath the photo is this: "Refraction: Newton's model of light could explain why light bent when it passed from one medium to another, but it could not explain another phenomenon we now call Newton's Rings." Now, we almost all of us have seen a straw in a glass of water. Did we need to see another? Even with a particularly nice red and white table cloth? On the other hand, how many of us have seen "Newton's Rings?" Wouldn't it have been better to have shown the readers a photo of Newton's Rings? Especially when considering that on p.117 there are three additional photographs of straws in glasses of liquid, possibly cranberry juice, which illustrate "refraction" equally well?
Well, perhaps I'm being too fussy. A bigger question is: does the book adequately answer the questions it sets out to answer? Does it explain "why there is something rather than nothing?" "Why do we exist?" "Why this particular set of laws and not some other?" I have read the book twice, and I am unsure. I have certainly had my thinking on these subjects stimulated. My brain is buzzing with possiblities. But I feel I need to know more.... which, after all, is not a bad thing.
Show More
instance Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality. So I am most grateful for the efforts of writer-scientists like Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow who succeed where others do not.The book is not perfect. Every few pages one finds a lame cartoon. These cartoons are...well: lame. They are not amusing, and are not connected to the text. The illustrations are an improvement, but even here I pause and wonder. On page 54 there is an illustration of a glass of water with a straw in it. The illustration is very nice. I particularly like the red & white tablecloth upon which the glass rests. The note beneath the photo is this: "Refraction: Newton's model of light could explain why light bent when it passed from one medium to another, but it could not explain another phenomenon we now call Newton's Rings." Now, we almost all of us have seen a straw in a glass of water. Did we need to see another? Even with a particularly nice red and white table cloth? On the other hand, how many of us have seen "Newton's Rings?" Wouldn't it have been better to have shown the readers a photo of Newton's Rings? Especially when considering that on p.117 there are three additional photographs of straws in glasses of liquid, possibly cranberry juice, which illustrate "refraction" equally well?
Well, perhaps I'm being too fussy. A bigger question is: does the book adequately answer the questions it sets out to answer? Does it explain "why there is something rather than nothing?" "Why do we exist?" "Why this particular set of laws and not some other?" I have read the book twice, and I am unsure. I have certainly had my thinking on these subjects stimulated. My brain is buzzing with possiblities. But I feel I need to know more.... which, after all, is not a bad thing.
Show Less
LibraryThing member DirtPriest
Another Early Reviewer book, thank you very much. The authors do a good job of simplifying some very advanced and frankly illogical science. Quantum Physics is silly on the face of it but it seems to work, there has never been a test of any sort that has fundamentally changed it. Besides if science
So, Hawking and Mlodinow jaunt along, posing a few questions in the beginning, explaining some requisite science in the middle, then giving their answers in the end. Why is there something instead of nothing? Why do we exist? Why does this particular set of laws govern our universe and not some other set? I enjoyed the exploration of those questions. Some sort of multiverse concept with every universe having differing fundamental constants has long been an idea of mine, and it pops up again here. By differing constants, that refers to things like altered weight of an electron, or the strength of gravity or the nuclear forces, speed of light, whatever.
The book will pick up some controversy by the authors' replacing of any concept of God with random chance in selecting these constants, but it seemed a bit fuzzy. Staring at a chalkboard covered with arcane math can do that to you. At enough of a depth level, you think you can peer through the veil of reality and gaze upon the inner workings of the universe at a fundamental level. I've been there too. Having a multi-page calculus problem unfold in your mind in a second or so is a life changing experience.
Show More
can't answer a simple question like 'What is time?' then I would assume that quantum mechanics only seems logical. What if time is an illusion drawn from the way our three dimensional brains perceive and model a multi-dimensional reality. It's all relative.So, Hawking and Mlodinow jaunt along, posing a few questions in the beginning, explaining some requisite science in the middle, then giving their answers in the end. Why is there something instead of nothing? Why do we exist? Why does this particular set of laws govern our universe and not some other set? I enjoyed the exploration of those questions. Some sort of multiverse concept with every universe having differing fundamental constants has long been an idea of mine, and it pops up again here. By differing constants, that refers to things like altered weight of an electron, or the strength of gravity or the nuclear forces, speed of light, whatever.
The book will pick up some controversy by the authors' replacing of any concept of God with random chance in selecting these constants, but it seemed a bit fuzzy. Staring at a chalkboard covered with arcane math can do that to you. At enough of a depth level, you think you can peer through the veil of reality and gaze upon the inner workings of the universe at a fundamental level. I've been there too. Having a multi-page calculus problem unfold in your mind in a second or so is a life changing experience.
Show Less
LibraryThing member 2wonderY
"Philosophy is dead." Science has all the answers. Just a mite too arrogant and self-satisfied for my tastes.
LibraryThing member bragan
Hawking and Mlodinow attempt to explain the entire universe in 180 pages. They start out with a couple of philosophical chapters addressing the question of what we can understand about the nature of reality and where science fits in. Then they quickly cover basic quantum mechanics, relativity,
Most of the subject matter here was not at all new to me, which left me feeling a little disappointed. I was hoping for a little less Intro to Modern Physics and a little more string theory, perhaps. The topics they do cover are presented very non-technically; there are no equations in the book, and most of the diagrams seem to be intended more to look pretty than to convey anything complicated. But while it's difficult for me to say for sure, I strongly suspect that a reader coming into this with no prior knowledge of the subject matter is likely to find the explanations a little too concise. Based on my own experience, this is stuff that you need a bit of hand-holding to process properly the first time you encounter it, and they really don't do much of that.
Show More
gravity, electromagnetism, and attempts to formulate a Grand Unified Theory before getting to the somewhat controversial notion that there may be many, many more universes than ours, an idea they believe could ultimately provide the answers to the biggest questions we have.Most of the subject matter here was not at all new to me, which left me feeling a little disappointed. I was hoping for a little less Intro to Modern Physics and a little more string theory, perhaps. The topics they do cover are presented very non-technically; there are no equations in the book, and most of the diagrams seem to be intended more to look pretty than to convey anything complicated. But while it's difficult for me to say for sure, I strongly suspect that a reader coming into this with no prior knowledge of the subject matter is likely to find the explanations a little too concise. Based on my own experience, this is stuff that you need a bit of hand-holding to process properly the first time you encounter it, and they really don't do much of that.
Show Less
LibraryThing member CareBear36
I am not a science person. I failed my freshman science courses in college and never looked back. Having said that, this is a great book for people who are interested in science, but are not necessarily that quick to understand everything about it. The authors put together an interesting book that
Show More
was also manageable to read. I really enjoyed this book. Show Less
LibraryThing member Drifter83
This was a surprisingly quick read considering the subject matter is the theory of...everything. I enjoyed reading it, and would definitely recommend it to anyone interested, but cannot rate it higher than 3 stars (or maybe 3 1/2) because only about 5% of the material felt new. I am no scientist,
Show More
but have read a few similar books (including others by Hawking, Barry Parker, Brian Greene, etc). Only the discussion of the distortion of time at the beginning of the universe (and the subsequent conclusions regarding God) seemed particularly novel.That said, this was a very clear and concise summary of much of the rest of the literature on these various topics (string theory, quantum physics, unified theories, etc). The writing is enjoyable and easy to follow, and the chapters are narrative and accessible. There are multiple attempts at humor, which are well-intentioned if overly contrived.My biggest criticisms are also some of the book's greatest strengths (depending on the reader) - there is almost no science, beyond some very basic descriptions and analogies. I would have liked for this to expand a bit on some of the earlier books, but as I recall (I haven't read any in years), Hawking's other books actually go more in depth into these various phenomena.This is a good introduction (or refresher) on the world of theoretical physics, but it is not much more. Show Less
LibraryThing member nbmars
In The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow address the questions of what is the nature of reality and whether the universe needs a “creator" to make sense. These issues traditionally have been part of the realm of philosophy, but the authors assert “philosophy is dead.” The
The authors’ perception of reality is shaped by the assumptions of quantum physics as explained by Richard Feynman, whose “sum over histories” approach posits that any physical system has not one history but every possible history. In quantum theory, the unobserved past (like the future) is indefinite, and exists only as a spectrum of probabilities. To the authors, “the universe doesn’t have just a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability; and our observations of its current state affect its past and determine the different histories of the universe.”
For the past century, scientists have attempted to articulate a single theory that encompasses both special relativity (which accurately describes observations of large systems like galaxies) and quantum physics (which describes events on an atomic or nuclear scale). Although special relativity and quantum theory are both very powerful in their respective domains, they appear logically inconsistent with one another. String theory and M-theory are attempts to resolve the inconsistencies. Both require the existence of multiple dimensions of space-time (10 and 11, respectively), only four of which are observable, time being the fourth. The other dimensions are tightly “curled up” in the visible dimensions. M-theory allows for “different universes with different apparent laws, depending on how the internal space is curled.”
Modern cosmology infers that there really was a “big bang,” and attempts to describe the state of the universe in its first nanoseconds of existence when it may have been as small as the Plank size: a billion-trillion-trillionth of a centimeter. The authors state, “So though we don’t yet have a complete quantum theory of gravity, we do know that the origin of the universe was a quantum event.”
In the early universe, quantum theory tells us that time would have been “warped” to such an extent that it behaved like “another dimension of space.” There were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. Time as we know it did not exist. “That is beyond our experience, but not beyond our imagination, or our mathematics.” It’s beyond my imagination, but I trust it is not beyond Hawking’s mathematics.
At this point in the argument, the authors pull a little intellectual sleight of hand. I have to quote extensively here because their argument is quite arcane and don’t want to misstate it:
“If in the early universe all four dimensions behave like space, what happens to the beginning of time? The realization that time can behave like another direction of space means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. The universe would start at the South Pole, but the South Pole, is much like any other point. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole….The realization that time behaves like space…removes the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning, but also means that the beginning of the universe was governed by the laws of science and doesn’t need to be set in motion by some god.”
The authors then apply Feynman’s sum over histories technique to the entire universe, a tricky proposition to say the least. They “add up all the histories that satisfy the no-boundary condition [described in the previous paragraph] and end at the universe we observe today….In this view, the universe appeared spontaneously, starting off in every possible way. Most of these correspond to other universes.” [!!!] Those other universes are “out there” so to speak, but they are not observable, even in principle, from this universe.
We do not know anything about the laws of nature that apply in those other universes, but there is no reason that they have to be similar to our own. There is a vast landscape of possible universes, but ones in which life like ours can exist must be quite rare. In fact, ours seems extremely fine tuned to make life possible. The authors conclude that this extreme fine tuning “can be explained by the existence of multiple universes.” We just happen to be in one where life is possible. This reasoning is sometimes called the “anthropic principle.” The existence of life does not require a designer because “a very simple set of laws can produce complex features similar to those of intelligent life.”
But why is there something rather than nothing? Well, “gravity shapes space and time [so] it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing….Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing….It is not necessary to invoke God to…set the universe going.” So there! The authors seem to answer the question of how the universe came to exist by saying that it was nothing special: it happens all the time—naturally.
The first three times I read this conclusion, something seemed very fishy to me. The authors seemed to assume that because they can treat a no-boundary condition mathematically, the beginning of the universe had to be just such an event, and to ask about what preceded that event is a “meaningless question.” But isn’t it also possible to describe mathematically a universe bounded by time? If so, the authors have not given an explanation that can claim to be unique. In fact, I think the authors’ ambitions were more modest: they had not attempted to provide a unique or necessary account or the origin of the universe. Rather, they attempted (and I think succeeded) to show that their account is plausible and sufficient. In so doing, they have argued cogently that it is not necessary to posit a pre-existing creator.
Evaluation: This book is written for a broad audience, including those who are mathematically illiterate. It contains no equations, although it does discuss probability amplitudes and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Nevertheless, it manages to elucidate some pretty recondite concepts. I recommend it highly for the scientifically and philosophically curious.
Show More
answers they give to those deep conundrums are suggested by recent developments in physics, particularly the hyper-exotic concepts of what has become known as M-theory (discussed below).The authors’ perception of reality is shaped by the assumptions of quantum physics as explained by Richard Feynman, whose “sum over histories” approach posits that any physical system has not one history but every possible history. In quantum theory, the unobserved past (like the future) is indefinite, and exists only as a spectrum of probabilities. To the authors, “the universe doesn’t have just a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability; and our observations of its current state affect its past and determine the different histories of the universe.”
For the past century, scientists have attempted to articulate a single theory that encompasses both special relativity (which accurately describes observations of large systems like galaxies) and quantum physics (which describes events on an atomic or nuclear scale). Although special relativity and quantum theory are both very powerful in their respective domains, they appear logically inconsistent with one another. String theory and M-theory are attempts to resolve the inconsistencies. Both require the existence of multiple dimensions of space-time (10 and 11, respectively), only four of which are observable, time being the fourth. The other dimensions are tightly “curled up” in the visible dimensions. M-theory allows for “different universes with different apparent laws, depending on how the internal space is curled.”
Modern cosmology infers that there really was a “big bang,” and attempts to describe the state of the universe in its first nanoseconds of existence when it may have been as small as the Plank size: a billion-trillion-trillionth of a centimeter. The authors state, “So though we don’t yet have a complete quantum theory of gravity, we do know that the origin of the universe was a quantum event.”
In the early universe, quantum theory tells us that time would have been “warped” to such an extent that it behaved like “another dimension of space.” There were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. Time as we know it did not exist. “That is beyond our experience, but not beyond our imagination, or our mathematics.” It’s beyond my imagination, but I trust it is not beyond Hawking’s mathematics.
At this point in the argument, the authors pull a little intellectual sleight of hand. I have to quote extensively here because their argument is quite arcane and don’t want to misstate it:
“If in the early universe all four dimensions behave like space, what happens to the beginning of time? The realization that time can behave like another direction of space means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. The universe would start at the South Pole, but the South Pole, is much like any other point. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole….The realization that time behaves like space…removes the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning, but also means that the beginning of the universe was governed by the laws of science and doesn’t need to be set in motion by some god.”
The authors then apply Feynman’s sum over histories technique to the entire universe, a tricky proposition to say the least. They “add up all the histories that satisfy the no-boundary condition [described in the previous paragraph] and end at the universe we observe today….In this view, the universe appeared spontaneously, starting off in every possible way. Most of these correspond to other universes.” [!!!] Those other universes are “out there” so to speak, but they are not observable, even in principle, from this universe.
We do not know anything about the laws of nature that apply in those other universes, but there is no reason that they have to be similar to our own. There is a vast landscape of possible universes, but ones in which life like ours can exist must be quite rare. In fact, ours seems extremely fine tuned to make life possible. The authors conclude that this extreme fine tuning “can be explained by the existence of multiple universes.” We just happen to be in one where life is possible. This reasoning is sometimes called the “anthropic principle.” The existence of life does not require a designer because “a very simple set of laws can produce complex features similar to those of intelligent life.”
But why is there something rather than nothing? Well, “gravity shapes space and time [so] it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing….Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing….It is not necessary to invoke God to…set the universe going.” So there! The authors seem to answer the question of how the universe came to exist by saying that it was nothing special: it happens all the time—naturally.
The first three times I read this conclusion, something seemed very fishy to me. The authors seemed to assume that because they can treat a no-boundary condition mathematically, the beginning of the universe had to be just such an event, and to ask about what preceded that event is a “meaningless question.” But isn’t it also possible to describe mathematically a universe bounded by time? If so, the authors have not given an explanation that can claim to be unique. In fact, I think the authors’ ambitions were more modest: they had not attempted to provide a unique or necessary account or the origin of the universe. Rather, they attempted (and I think succeeded) to show that their account is plausible and sufficient. In so doing, they have argued cogently that it is not necessary to posit a pre-existing creator.
Evaluation: This book is written for a broad audience, including those who are mathematically illiterate. It contains no equations, although it does discuss probability amplitudes and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Nevertheless, it manages to elucidate some pretty recondite concepts. I recommend it highly for the scientifically and philosophically curious.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Chris177
The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow is one of those physic books that, even though the authors have tried their best to simplify the concepts, still takes some work to get your mind to understand. I’m still not sure that the universe is comprehensible no mater how hard the
Show More
scientists try to make it but I find that this book helps! The words are well chosen to lead you through the world of Quantum Theory, Alternative Histories and The Theory of Everything. Whether or not you can understand your surroundings are up to your education, imagination and in a large part your spiritual beliefs. I found the book to be an informative introduction to a wonders of the universe (as we understand them today!) Show Less
LibraryThing member mitchellray
The authors claim science can answer both the how and why questions concerning the behavior of the universe without the need to invoke a god. Hawking and Mlodinow explore the fascinating and counterintuitive world of quantum physics to make their point. They conclude that M-theory is the most
Show More
promising candidate for the elusive theory of everything. This is actually not a single theory but a collection of theories with each describing a particular aspect of the universe. The authors write with wit, which makes for an enjoyable read. However, their main thesis is not clearly threaded throughout the book. This creates a disjointed narrative. The chapters do not seem to build upon each other to create a focused argument for their thesis. A nice read, but I often lost track of the main point of the book. Show Less
LibraryThing member XOX
The Big Bang only explain what happened shortly after universe is form. Time does not exists before Big Bang, and M Theory is currently the only theory that is closest to explaining everything. Plus gravity exists to balance out the force require to create life. All these in a thin book is
Show More
incrediable. Show Less
LibraryThing member JeffV
Stephen Hawking is an iconic figure in theoretical physics, and I'm rather convinced the reason he beats the odds and has stayed alive this long is because of his determination to finally create a unified theory that explains the physical and natural universe. Leonard Mlodinow is a best-selling
I've tried to read Hawking before, but I've never quite connected with him. While he appears to be patiently trying to explain some pretty heady theories in layman's terms, he always seems to not quite get there. And physics just isn't one of my specialties. Mlodinow did a fine job speaking my language, so there was hope....
Alas, it just didn't quite come together. The "M-Theory", Hawking's proposal for a "theory of everything" is complex and is an amalgamation of multiple theories, not all which are equally well explained. In particular is trying to envision dimensions beyond the three that most impact our daily lives, and the incredible number of simultaneous universes the theory allows. He tries to explain how the big-bang occurred; how something from nothing COULD occur, but I'll be damned if I could relate this to someone else--especially a non-physicist type, perhaps a religious type who most needs to understand what is probably a convincing argument (Hawking does take a secular approach across the board).
Perhaps the best parts of the book dealt with the history of theories dealing with the natural universe, including such luminaries as Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Newton, Einstein, Hubble, and Feynman. The color illustrations are nice, although some times I didn't quite get the point of the illustration. I'm pretty sure at some point, an author is going to make the concepts herein more accessible to people like me. I'll be first in line to buy it when they do.
Show More
author who most recently explained the fascinating world of probability in his book, The Drunkard's Walk. I've tried to read Hawking before, but I've never quite connected with him. While he appears to be patiently trying to explain some pretty heady theories in layman's terms, he always seems to not quite get there. And physics just isn't one of my specialties. Mlodinow did a fine job speaking my language, so there was hope....
Alas, it just didn't quite come together. The "M-Theory", Hawking's proposal for a "theory of everything" is complex and is an amalgamation of multiple theories, not all which are equally well explained. In particular is trying to envision dimensions beyond the three that most impact our daily lives, and the incredible number of simultaneous universes the theory allows. He tries to explain how the big-bang occurred; how something from nothing COULD occur, but I'll be damned if I could relate this to someone else--especially a non-physicist type, perhaps a religious type who most needs to understand what is probably a convincing argument (Hawking does take a secular approach across the board).
Perhaps the best parts of the book dealt with the history of theories dealing with the natural universe, including such luminaries as Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Newton, Einstein, Hubble, and Feynman. The color illustrations are nice, although some times I didn't quite get the point of the illustration. I'm pretty sure at some point, an author is going to make the concepts herein more accessible to people like me. I'll be first in line to buy it when they do.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Stbalbach
I had two problems with this book 1) much of it was over my head and 2) I listened to the audiobook, things went so fast I had no hope of keeping up. Still, I was able to follow the core ideas, I think. Hawking believes that M-Theory is the GUT (Grand Unified Theory) and although it has not been
Show More
empirically proven, which could take centuries and generations, we can still think about its meaning and significance today. Hawking will probably die in the next few decades, most of us within the next 40-60 years or so, should we simply not think about the greater significance of M-Theory as a GUT since we don't have the tools to prove it yet? This book is a thought experiment - let's assume M-Theory is true - what is the significance? A 60000 year quest to find the creator has reached a conclusion. We don't need a creator, something can be created from nothing. That is an exciting idea - even if we don't live long enough to see it proven, there does seem to be light at the end of the tunnel. I'm glad someone of Hawking's experience and intelligence has given us his sense of where the future lays and what it means, he is a sort of time portal. Many have faulted him for jumping the gun, but I see it as a positive gift, a pearl of wisdom. Show Less
LibraryThing member alanjlevine
Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow conclude that science now serves man in the role formerly played by philosophy and religion. They do this without acknowledging they now espouse a new philosophy and a new religion of sorts. Save that it's not really new. For as G.K. Chesterton pointed out, a
Deny it though they might - surely they would - Hawking and Mlodinow are really neo-pantheists. They worship in the church of scientific materialism and on their altar is gravity. For the punch-line of The Grand Design is that the law of gravity makes an otherwise improbable universe inevitable. Gravity is a priori. But while they point out that the religionist is fairly asked whence the God they worship comes from, the scientists never even feel the need to ask themselves Who authored the law of gravity.
The book itself is decent. It is well-written, concise, and beautifully illustrated. However, there is much in the substance of the science and theory that is unsatisfactory. In fairness, the only way it could be made complete in this respect while maintaining its readability were if the reader to go earn a doctorate in theoretical physics and then come back for a fuller treatment of the technical details of quantum mechanics and m-theory. But then, that would be a different, and much longer book.
Read The Grand Design for a glancing view of the picture of creation which physics and cosmology have revealed to those smart enough to design the experiments, manipulate the math, and imagine the theories. But don't get your theology from the authors. Better to read George MacDonald, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Mother Theresa, and so on, for one's spiritual education. For while Hawking and Mlodinow may be brilliant scientists, they are mediocre atheists who believe they've evolved beyond God. In doing so, they've become mere pagans fetishizing not mountain spirits and wood demons, but rather gravity, m-theory, and all the universes they see in their equations.
Show More
materialist is a materialist is a materialist whether they live in the twelfth century or the twenty-first century. And so for a theist. The difference between now and then is today we have more data and more complicated theories with which to deal. Deny it though they might - surely they would - Hawking and Mlodinow are really neo-pantheists. They worship in the church of scientific materialism and on their altar is gravity. For the punch-line of The Grand Design is that the law of gravity makes an otherwise improbable universe inevitable. Gravity is a priori. But while they point out that the religionist is fairly asked whence the God they worship comes from, the scientists never even feel the need to ask themselves Who authored the law of gravity.
The book itself is decent. It is well-written, concise, and beautifully illustrated. However, there is much in the substance of the science and theory that is unsatisfactory. In fairness, the only way it could be made complete in this respect while maintaining its readability were if the reader to go earn a doctorate in theoretical physics and then come back for a fuller treatment of the technical details of quantum mechanics and m-theory. But then, that would be a different, and much longer book.
Read The Grand Design for a glancing view of the picture of creation which physics and cosmology have revealed to those smart enough to design the experiments, manipulate the math, and imagine the theories. But don't get your theology from the authors. Better to read George MacDonald, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Mother Theresa, and so on, for one's spiritual education. For while Hawking and Mlodinow may be brilliant scientists, they are mediocre atheists who believe they've evolved beyond God. In doing so, they've become mere pagans fetishizing not mountain spirits and wood demons, but rather gravity, m-theory, and all the universes they see in their equations.
Show Less
LibraryThing member gbsallery
The clearest summary of Hawking's current thinking that I have yet encountered. Whilst I miss some of the detail presented in, for example, A Brief History of Time, this book is a more concise summary which covers a little more of the M-Theory material (without ever, quite, explaining what M-Theory
Show More
is - but this is true of all summaries I have so far encountered). Lavishly illustrated, and with his usual dry humour, this book is highly readable and also raises some interesting questions. Well worth a read. Show Less
LibraryThing member mschuyler
In his last very popular book, "A Brief History of Time," Hawking postulated that a grand unified theory would be found by the year 2000. It didn't happen. Now Hawking seems to be saying it won't be found at all and that what we will end up with is a number of inter-connected theories which make
The book suffers a bit because it's so brief. I'm still shaking my head over his explanation of the two slit experiment, the basis for Feyneman's theories. It just isn't filled out well enough to explain it. In some sense that may be a good thing because it will be an incentive to learn more, but, you know, he could have just explained it.
Show More
sense within their own context, but not others. In other words, reality just depends on how you view it, so "reality" doesn't make sense. He also seems to buy off on Richard Feyneman's "many worlds" theory which postulates that all possibilities exist in their own universe. The book suffers a bit because it's so brief. I'm still shaking my head over his explanation of the two slit experiment, the basis for Feyneman's theories. It just isn't filled out well enough to explain it. In some sense that may be a good thing because it will be an incentive to learn more, but, you know, he could have just explained it.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jerrybeller
Not sure this book quite accomplishes what Mr. Hawking set out to do, but it is a good read and I learned a great deal by reading this. It was worth the purchase and time spent reading.
LibraryThing member stuart10er
Good, but not great. This is now the second book that I've read of Hawking's. He is not Carl Sagan. I'm sure he has important ideas to convey, but he is not a popularizer of scientific concepts. Perhaps he could stick with scientific articles and short articles in Science or something like that.
Show More
The book was really just a way to lay out the case for the multiverse. An important idea, for sure, but it had enough detail to be boring but not enough vision to be interesting. Split the difference and didn't quite suit either need. Show Less
LibraryThing member moonimal
Yuck. I loved Hawking's 'Brief History of Time', but I found this one thin (content-wise) and inconclusive. To call it the Grand Design, and then simply present work that says "there's lots of theories that all together form a cool picture" is disappointing. I realize I'm probably not the audience
If you've never read Hawking, or you don't have other pop physics books on your shelf, this would be a good read.
Show More
for this book, as I've read a LOT of popular science books, and I love this stuff, so maybe I should relax into this.If you've never read Hawking, or you don't have other pop physics books on your shelf, this would be a good read.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bibleblaster
In the first few chapters, I had this amazing feeling that I just might be able to understand it all. This dissipated in the later chapters, as physics well beyond my severely limited knowledge was explored...yet it was fascinating and engaging even to this layperson. Explores the interesting nexus
Show More
of the creation and implementation of scientific models (science has long ago left behind the "you have to see it to believe it" attitude) and how one creates meaning from such models. Show Less
LibraryThing member bonius
Short. Fairly non-technical. Some cheesy jokes mixed in to break up the drier scientific sections. Not nearly as controversial as the press junket would have you believe.
LibraryThing member MayaArb
A lot of circular logic and simplistic language really made me feel Mr. Hawking just doesn't think his readers are smart enough to understand.
Pages
208
ISBN
0553805371 / 9780553805376