User Reviews
Rating: really liked it
this surprisingly relaxed and enjoyable collection of essays by Hawking didn't make me feel one bit stupid. not one bit! and i am a real dolt when it comes to much of science in general and physics in particular. thank you Hawking for not talking down to me and presenting your rich, dense pie of ideas in a way that was perfectly palatable.
there are a couple of pleasant, unpretentious essays on Hawking's personal life and history (noticeably absent in his prior bestseller) and his general thoughts on life - including some amusing comments on his computer voice's distinctly american accent. and there are some fun, bitchy barbs aimed at his own personal nemeses - "philosophers of science"
(...failed physicists who found it too hard to invent new theories and so took to writing about the philosophy of physics instead. They are still arguing about the scientific theories of the early years of this century, like relativity and quantum mechanics. They are not in touch with the present frontier of physics.) perhaps that sounds harsh, particularly coming from a theoretical physicist. but apparently these dastardly Philosophers of Science have been hounding him for years, simply due to his own resistance to fitting his approach and ideas into a single, known school of thought (i.e. as nominalist or instumentalist or positivist or realist, etc... most of which have absolutely no meaning to me). go get 'em, Hawking!
the above paragraph describes only a handful of the essays. the rest are almost entirely concerned with explaining black holes, baby universe, the 4 basic interactions (strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and - the weakest of all - our old friend gravity); concepts such as "imaginary time"; the continued relevance of quantum mechanics; and especially Hawkings' pursuit of a "Grand Unified Theory". Hawkings' work (and this collection) is overtly driven by his desire to finally create this "theory of everything" - one that will at long last lay bare the inner workings of the universe, where we have been, where we are going, how it all connects and what it is all about. is there a greater goal for a theoretical physicist? i really don't know. but this drive really gave me the impression of Hawking being one of the world's Great Men, a man who contemplates the finite and the infinite on a casual basis and whose quest in life is not so much based in ego (although that is there) but in helping to raise humanity to the next level. whatever that level may be.
one might think that God has no place in all of this. well, one would be wrong. God seems to be very much on Hawking's mind. his quest is, in a way, a striving to understand 'the mind of God'. fascinating! here are some of his thoughts on this topic:
"It is now generally accepted that the universe evolves according to well-defined laws. These laws may have been ordained by God, but it seems that He does not intervene in the universe to break the laws. Until recently, however, it was thought that these laws did not apply to the beginning of the universe. It would be up to God to wind up the clockwork and set the universe going in any way He wanted. Thus, the present state of the universe would be the result of God's choice of the initial conditions.
The situation would be very different, however, if something like the no-boundary proposal were correct. In that case the laws of physics would hold even at the beginning of the universe, so God would not have had the freedom to choose the initial conditions. Of course, He would still have been free to choose the laws that the universe obeyed. However, this may not have been much of a choice. There may only be a small number of laws, which are self-consistent and which lead to complicated beings like ourselves who can ask the question: What is the nature of God?
And if there is only one unique set of possible laws, it is only a set of equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to govern? is the ultimate unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it cannot answer the question: Why does the universe bother to exist?"rather strange to find this kind of discussion within a book concerned with theoretical physics. but Hawking makes it not so strange; if anything, his mind illustrates its own kind of Grand Unified Theory. he connects so many things, without ever rambling - on a personal level, on a theoretical level, on a purely scientific level. he writes eloquently and passionately about his thoughts on God, on determinism vs. free will, on various moments in history, on so much... and on his favorite records! what an awesome mind. what a man!
he also answers this timeless question, posed by Sue from Desert Island Discs:
Sue: What would happen if you fell into a black hole?
Stephen: You get made into spaghetti.
Rating: really liked it
This is a very different book from A Brief History of Time. Hawking notes he doesn’t want to write an autobiography, and puts off people who try to persuade him by saying he’s “considering it” when he’s just avoiding it. I actually think this reads a bit like an autobiography; half of it is devoted to childhood anecdotes, why he got into physics, how his disease affects him (or doesn’t), how he feels about his celebrity and his image with the public.
I can never decide how much I like Hawking. He can be lowkey condescending at times, but on the other hand he admits his shortcomings freely and quickly and has this droll tone conveyed throughout that makes him irresistible. (“When I was twelve, one of my friends bet another friend a bag of sweets that I would never come to anything. I don’t know if this bet was ever settled and, if so, which way it was decided.”)
He also says something rather interesting about the machine that conveys his speech: “The synthesizer is by far the best I have heard because it varies the intonation. The only trouble is that it gives me an American accent. However, by now I identify with its voice. I would not want to change it even if I were offered a British-sounding voice. I would feel I had become a different person.” - This reminds me of the EXTREMELY interesting cyborg movement led by Neil Harbisson, which seeks for non-organic bodily additions (antennae, implants, wheelchairs, prosthetic limbs, etc.) to be legally/ethically/socially recognized as part of the body.
I do have a little hatred in my heart for Hawking because of how much he hates philosophy, and how little he seems to understand of it. I’m not saying he *couldn’t*, of course, he certainly could if he bothered to. But from what he says, it seems he’s read very, very little philosophy, and generally refuses to think about it, but is happy to criticize it out of spite (because apparently some philosophers criticize him). Because his criticisms of what philosophy of science accomplishes is, to borrow a phrase from I-can’t-remember-whom, “picking the stick up from the other end.” Same stick, different end, totally different point. The goals he says philosophers of science are failing at simply aren’t their goals.
I also don’t really agree with this fiction that he’s the best at explaining cosmology to laymen. He’s not bad, but I’ve definitely read better-phrased material on the same subjects. He also sometimes has a tendency to mess up his pacing. Like he’ll natter on for days about something that I’m like “Yeah, duh, we all know this, Stephen, don’t talk down to us, move on.” And then other things that absolutely bewilder me, he skips over all “yeah duh of course” but no, not duh.
I did learn, which I had not previously known, that there may well be “white holes” in the universe which are the counterpart to black holes; as black holes suck matter in, they expel that matter, though not, of course, in any recognizable way. And that baby universes might exist where particles go while inside a black hole, before they are emitted by the white hole that is born somewhere else. Lovely.
Rating: really liked it
This is a collection of personal and scientific articles written by Stephen Hawking over the period 1976 to 1992. If you have read some of Stephen Hawking's major books, you'll find this one repetitive and unnecessary. If you haven't, it might be a good introduction.
Rating: really liked it
Came for the science, stayed for the humour.
"Black holes might be useful for getting rid of garbage or even some of one's friends."
Rating: really liked it
Chapter 12 of this book of Stephen Hawking's occasional writings reproduces a lecture given at the University of Cambridge in April 1990. It is entitled "Is Everything Determined?" This essay is a work of art—perfectly organized, in simple but elegant language, and mostly well reasoned.
Hawking concluded that science can neither prove nor disprove that free will is impossible in the face of scientific determinism and that, pending such proof, we "may as well adopt the effective theory that humans are free agents who can choose what to do." In the course of arriving at this conclusion, Hawking stated:
"I have noticed that even people who claim that everything is predestined and that we can do nothing to change it look before they cross the road. Maybe it's just that those who don't look don't survive to tell the tale.
"One cannot base one's conduct on the idea that everything is determined, because one does not know what has been determined. Instead, one has to adopt the effective theory that one has free will and that one is responsible for one's actions. This theory is not very good at predicting human behavior, but we adopt it because there is no chance of solving the equations arising from the fundamental laws. There is also a Darwinian reason that we believe in free will. A society in which the individual feels responsible for his or her actions is more likely to work together and survive to spread its values. . . . A collection of free individuals who share mutual aims . . . can collaborate on their common objectives and yet have the flexibility to make innovations. Thus, such a society is more likely to prosper and to spread its system of values.
"The concept of free will belongs to a different arena from that of fundamental laws of science. If one tries to deduce human behavior from the laws of science, one gets caught in the logical paradox of self-referencing systems."
Stephen Hawking, "Is Everything Determined?," in
"Black Holes and Baby Universes" and Other Essays (New York: Bantam Books, 1994), 134-35, 138.
Considering my current interest in the issue of free will, I am not now reading the other essays in this book and accordingly am not rating the book as a whole.
Alan E. Johnson
(revised June 2, 2018)
Rating: really liked it
Fascinating and Stimulating
Like others who have reviewed this work, I can endorse it as a stimulating and thoughtful book. It is in essence however not a coherent book with a single theme. It is a compilation of articles and as such there is much in the book that is repetitive. Hawking acknowledges this and disclaims it at the outset. Even with the forewarning I found that element to be a tad annoying.
I listened to the audio version of the book while commuting and I found it overall to be a fascinating read. The biographical material about Hawking helped to put a "person" to the personality. Hawking is, without doubt, brilliant. His ability to reduce difficult concepts to listener sound bites speaks to that brilliance. I came away with an appreciation for his brilliance and abilities as well as the field of cosmological science that I did not have before.
Of particular note, I found Hawking's treatment of metaphysics to be interesting but ultimately no more valuable than anyone else's opinions in that area. Physics will never answer the question of why the universe exists or whether God in fact exists and created this universe. Science can only answer how the universe works and what laws govern its behavior. Hawkings admits this himself so I took no offense to his words, I just found it interesting that his position did not make his insights in that regard any more valuable.
The final segment of transcript from a radio show read by the narrator struck me a an opportunity missed to allow Hawking to finish with his own voice and presence. I was disappointed they did not use the original sound feed and chose to read the transcript.
Well worth the read or the listen. Entertaining. Already dated though and perhaps his more recent works would be of more value to most listeners.
Rating: really liked it
Wonderful book for theoretical astrophysics neophytes such as me! The book is written in the same clear and simple style as 'A Brief History of Time'. Hawking dumbs down his work enough to make it accessible to the masses without compromising on its intrigue or wonder.
I was particularly impressed by his explanation for imaginary time, a concept I have been struggling to understand for some time. More importantly, it is the kind of book that turns people on to science. Well done, Mr. Hawking!
Rating: really liked it
This book is the Shrödinger's cat of physics books: both lacking for a physicist and simultaneously too complicated for the layman. Even though it is a collection of speeches and essays, Hawkings writing is not to my liking. It is too plain and not detailed enough in topics of actual interest. I'm glad this book was short but even so it was a struggle to complete.
Rating: really liked it
Not as complex as I thought. Its very descriptive and give to the reader a lot of examples to understand the theories and the concepts.
Rating: really liked it
For a look at Stephen Hawking's Desert Island Playlist which he gave on Christmas Day 1992, check out my blog post with the list:
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...
Rating: really liked it
My favorite aspect of this collection of essays is that Hawking reveals himself as well as his science. The book includes two autobiographical essays and an interview in which Hawking tells the reader about his early history and his contraction of motor neuron disease, as well as his transformation from a bored young adult to a well-established and cutting-edge theoretical physicist. I like Hawking and his style as much as I enjoy learning about (and reviewing) key tenets of astrophysics. I also like the fact that Hawking doesn't shy away from giving other people credit for their discoveries. It's endearing.
Each of the essays in this collection was easy to follow and held my attention for different reasons. I like that Hawking is positive and life affirming. I like that he doesn't ever deny the existence of God. I like his obvious admiration of Einstein. I like that Hawking is always conscious of his reader and clearly wants his reader to understand and appreciate the value of physics and the reasons that it matters for everyday life.
I highly recommend this book to people interested in astrophysics, Stephen Hawking, and how things work and why they work the way they do (after all, that's what got Hawking started with science: wanting to know why and how).
Rating: really liked it
a universally enjoyable read (crappy pun intended)
Rating: really liked it
I learned too much with this book, I don't like this type of books, but, its very helpful
Rating: really liked it
‘We are not quite sure what happens inside a black hole. There are solutions of the equations of general relativity that would allow one to fall into a black hole and come out of a white hole somewhere else. A white hole is the time reverse of a black hole. It is an object that things can come out of but nothing can fall into. The white hole could be in another part of the universe. This would seem to offer the possibility of rapid intergalactic travel.’
Was in a big mood to read about black holes, but I’m a little too acquainted with Hawking (biography) and his theories (and discoveries/studies) to properly enjoy this. But nonetheless, not a bad read. Better suited to a reader who is more unfamiliar with Hawking/his work.
Rating: really liked it
You read this collection of essays and get what you can from them. Hawking himself knows (see the last essay, actually interview, at the end of the book) that there is much the reader will not understand. Hawking says that a universe that collapses onto itself is a "singularity of infinite density," but it's not clear what about it is "infinite." He says that time/space has no boundary or edge. We understand that point as a circle and Hawking uses the earth as an example (one can travel around the earth and back to a starting point). But that stimulates the next question, which is what is beyond the circle? While we know some sort of space lies beyond the earth, is there nothing beyond space and time and, if so, what or how does one understand "nothing"?
Hawking summarizes nicely the four forces in the order of strength, but it's hard not to wonder whether the gravitational force, the weakest of the four, actually is the primary one. Hawking says that matter in the beginning was created out of energy by borrowing from the gravitational energy of the universe (and that this energy was necessary to counter the effects of gravity, the matter tucked tightly in a pre-Big Bang scenario). Even with a glimmer of understanding, that's heady stuff. Hawking says that a collapsed star that forms a black hole is a reverse version of the Big Bang process. Matter attracts to a singularity, which seems to be some sort of ultimate gravity, not because some mysterious center point pulls matter to itself, but because matter attracts matter and the only result is a pull to some center point. There, does matter become so dense (infinite?) that it creates the explosive power ("Infinite" matter converts to energy?) necessary to create a Big Bang scenario? Do black holes explode in the same way, thereby helping to perpetuate the cyclic nature of the universe? If matter and energy are equivalent (Hawking doesn't describe how speed of light fits into Einstein's formula) and if gravity is matter attracted to itself, what creates the attraction and how does this relate to energy? Understandably, these speculative questions, more fun than frustrating, may make a professional physicist wince.
In one essay Hawking attempts to bridge physical laws and human behavior. He says the fundamental laws of science cannot be used to deduce human behavior. Yet, it's fair to wonder. Are not the four forces termed "interaction" (which includes gravity that, while often talked about as an attractive force, involves a critical distance where another mass resists being attracted). Are not humans matter and are not human relationships with each other and the world characterized by attraction and resistance? In the free will arena, Hawking seems to say that while physical laws predetermine, it is too complex to deduce whether and how humans are predetermined and, therefore, he seems to conclude that humans have some sort of free will. We know humans have a degree of choice, save for situations like genetic disease and death that make choices for us (though we try with religion and medicine). Hawking is silent on why we choose the way we do. On what basis is choice made? Does survival and well-being have a lot to do with such choices and isn't this science based? In Epicurean fashion, we seek whatever we are attracted to (need) and we resist what we are not attracted to (don't need). Is this similarity with the physical laws of the universe a coincidence?
Hawking makes a revealing, throw away, comment about Feynman resigning from the Academy of Sciences because "he hated pomp and humbug" and the Academy scientists were too preoccupied with who should be admitted to the Academy. Maybe that aside reveals that the best minds rest on animal-biological needs(survival and rank behavior related to survival) which, it is interesting to speculate, may tie into how matter relates to matter (we seek objects from the world to live; we resist threats to our life). On the whole, this is a terrific book.
