 | Selected Product:
| New Theories of Everything
Hardcover
Author: John D. Barrow
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
Release Date: 2007-07-26
ISBN-10: 0192807218
ISBN-13: 9780192807212
List Price: $29.95
Average Customer Rating:
  | |
Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel
ISBN-10: 0385520697
ISBN-13: 9780385520690
List Price:$26.95
The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next
ISBN-10: 061891868X
ISBN-13: 9780618918683
List Price:$15.95
Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang
ISBN-10: 0385509642
ISBN-13: 9780385509640
List Price:$24.95
Four Laws That Drive the Universe
ISBN-10: 0199232369
ISBN-13: 9780199232369
List Price:$19.95
Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Fate of the Cosmos
ISBN-10: 0801885922
ISBN-13: 9780801885921
List Price:$35.00
| To use our price comparison to get the cheapest price, please click on the "Find the Cheapest Price" button located above for New Theories of Everything by John D. Barrow (ISBN-10: 0192807218, ISBN-13: 9780192807212).
At this time we have not yet written a review for New Theories of Everything by John D. Barrow (ISBN-10: 0192807218, ISBN-13: 9780192807212). Please continue to keep checking back to this page as we are constantly adding reviews.
Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com
Published in 1991, John Barrow's Theories of Everything was hailed as "a mind-boggling intellectual adventure" by Publishers Weekly and as "an exhilarating journey...important, engaging, and highly literate" by New Scientist. Now, in New Theories of Everything, Barrow completely updates his classic account of one of the hottest fields in all of science--the search for a cosmic key that will unlock the secrets of the Universe.
Will we ever discover a single scientific theory of everything? How can one theory ever explain a world full of chaos and complexity? In thisstimulating volume, Barrow sheds light on these questions as he presents the reader with the very latest ideas and predictions, ranging from the speculations of Stephen Wolfram about the world as a computer program to recent developments in string theory and M theory, new varieties of complexity, new ideas about the nature of mathematics, and much more. He reveals that the field has changed dramatically. Fifteen years ago, scientists sought a single theory uniquely specifying the constants and forces of nature, but today they envision a vast landscape of different logically possible laws and constants in many dimensions, of which our own world is but a tiny facet of a higher dimensional reality. Equally important, Barrow reflects on the philosophical and cultural consequences of those remarkable new ideas, highlighting their implications for our own place in the universe.
The Theory of Everything has in recent years become the focus of some of the most exciting and imaginative thinking in science. Now fully revised, New Theories of Everything brings the story of this exhilarating quest completely up to date.
Let there be light?
| Customer Rating:  | Alas, no.
Over the years I have read several Barrow books: The Book of Nothing, Impossibility, Pi in the Sky, etc. Maybe even the first edition of this one (I don't have it, and seem to remember it but very hazily, but that might be a consequence of Barrow's writing essentialy one book under several titles, an impression of mine probably deriving from the fact that he tackles metaphisically entangled themes such as infinity, being, the nature of reality, TOEs, etc., which in my view are intimately related).
"New TOEs" is in my opinion a somewhat obscure and defective book, because (1) the first edition hasn't been rewritten but addded to; (2) it's an uneven mixture of dumbing down and illusory depth; and (3) Barrow has, not a golden, but a leaden (or iron, were we to follow Hesiod) pen.
(1) NOT REWRITTEN BUT ADDED TO: in page 3 he writes as if the 20th C had still to end; in his first summary of superstrings ("ss") (p. 24) he doesn't mention M theory, an omission which he makes good in page 32 ff., but without including the landscape problem: this is fleetingly alluded to only once in the whole book (p. 133), as contrasted to the constant references to eternal inflation and bubble Universes; there's constant emphasis on the heat death of the Universe whereas the acceleration of expansion (pp. 130/133, oddly introduced as a "rival Theory of (almost) Everything" to ss in p. 129) is treated only once; an unclear graph extends only to 1988 (p. 170); "if ss theory manages to produce some observable prediction in the not too distant future" (p. 224); etc. etc.
(2) UNEVEN MIXTURE OF DUMBING DOWN AND ILLUSORY DEPTH. I'll give just two examples (they take space), although there are many others: in pp. 46/50 Barrow discusses (unnecesarily in my view) the transfinite numbers -by the way there he states, mistakenly, that "the real numbers possess a higher cardinality than the natural numbers and it is denoted by ... (aleph-one)", when actually neither Cantor nor anybody else managed to prove that 'c', the power of the continuum, equals aleph-one, which is the cardinal of the first uncountable ordinal-. This is conceptually, for a layman, quite advanced stuff; yet elsewhere in the book he finds it necessary to define angular momentum as the total rotational energy of a body. Now, is it conceivable that a person who doesn't know what angular momentum is will be at ease and indeed understand four pages on denumerable and non-denumerable cardinals?
The other example is in page 228, where we are told that power series expansion and the "implicit function theorem ... define ... what local information about the world can be deduced from global ... information", and that "Stoke's famous integral theorem and the process of analytic continuation" are examples of the converse. Now, I know the meaning of these terms because I studied real and complex analysis in college. But a layman? For me, this information is unnecessary; for a layman (I suppose) unintelligible. So, whom is the book adressed to?
(3) BARROW HAS, NOT A GOLDEN, BUT A LEADEN (OR IRON, WERE WE TO FOLLOW HESIOD) PEN. Where to begin? At random: in p. 57, speaking of oscillating infinite series, we find the baffling statement "the limiting value of a sum must be specified together with the procedure used to calculate it".
In p. 70 the fall of a rock is described in such a confusing way that I had to spend some time figuring what he must have wanted to say so that the paragraph would not be incorrect.
In p. 79 he asserts that "the Newtonian Universe will not tolerate the consideration of an infinite space distributed with matter: this leads to an infinite aggregate of gravitational influences at any one point": what does he mean by that? does he refer to an isotropic Universe? is it a restatement of the reverse of Olber's paradox for gravity? Because Newton's answer was that, as the Universe was infinite and therefore symmetrical (around the Earth, for example) influences cancelled out. Does Barrow mean that in a Newtonian cosmology the Earth would be torn apart by infinite gravitational forces coming from everywhere, from the "space distributed by matter"? Would each one of us be sucked towards the outer limits of the Universe (but not torn apart, because the gradient wouldn't be as steep as near a black hole's central singularity?)?
In p. 226 what I assume to be Taylor's power series expansion is described with such an unusual terminology (I mean, "mathematical operation upon an input x" is perfectly acceptable, but why not say "function" when in pp.220/222 he mentions "Riemmanian geometry and tensors"; "Groups", "Hilbert spaces" and "Complex manifolds"?) and notation that I'm left in doubt as to what he wanted to convey.
In p. 227 we learn that "the world is non-local. This is the import of Bell's famous theorem". I don't doubt that Barrow knows what he's talking about, but that's not Bell's theorem. Eddington, he of verily the golden pen, would have put it differently.
Well, enough for me. Am I nitpicking? But all this from a tense-challenged (p. 98) mathematician!
There's a fourth point, but that depends on personal tastes: dwelling so extensively on time and its arrow, entropy, thermodynamics and the heat death, etc., I would have liked Barrow to have said something about the problems of recurrence, Bolzano's worries, Poincaré's theorem, etc. In the case of Wheeler-DeWitt's equation and Hartle-Hawking state, I would also have liked something said about loop quantum gravity. Idem about background independence (there's only one line about it).
The book's strong points are its emphasis on philosophy of math and phy; the clear if brief treatment of Einstein's cosmological constant; the mention of Xia's result about Newtonian mechanics (pp. 30/31, interesting because its resulting invalidation parallels GR's by the prediction of black hole singularities); the apt titles of some section headings: "The eternal golden braid", "The importance of being constant", "Goodbye to all that", etc., which, if really Barrow's, show culture and a wry sense of humour; the inclusion of all the "sexy" problems in cosmology, with the fourth point caveat and excepting the COBE and WMAP probes (but they really have little to do with the book's main thrust); and the very moderate space given to M "theory".
For me the book rates three stars, but I learned nothing new, and it wasn't particularly enjoyable, so one star less for the loss of time. |
Regarding Science-Ejected Vitalism, 2007:
| Customer Rating: | Vitalism is a profoundly science-ejected concept, though many CAM or 'natural health' cabals falsely claim that vitalism survives scientific scrutiny.
One of my favorite passages from this book:
"there is no reason to believe that the stuff of biology is made of anything but the atoms and molecules that the chemist studies; nor any reason to think that those atoms and molecules are composed of anything but the elementary particles of the physicist, any more than we would doubt that Michelangelo's Pieta is composed of raw material other than marble and stone. But such reductionism is trivial. It was worth stating only when there were baseless speculations that some mysterious substance ('phlogiston') was present in fire or some elan vital in 'living' things. As we bring simple things together, they produce aggregates that exhibit a wider diversity of behavior than the sum of their parts. Thus qualitatively new phenomena appear as the level of complexity rises or the number of ingredients increases. Such a situation was not foreseen by early vitalists [p.164]."
Meanwhile, naturopathy claims...
-r.c. |
I'm buying a copy after reading a borrowed one!
| Customer Rating: | | I real lots of physics/cosmology books. This one organized and written for comprehension - and the first I've encountered to integrate chaos and complexity processes as well as Steve Wolfram's New Kind of Science with QM and Strings - not flashy but impressive. |
A tedious read
| Customer Rating: | | From my laymans perspective and having read many cosmolgy / physics etc... related books and enjoyed some but put others down due to the complexity. I have read some of John Barrow's other books and thoroughly enjoyed them i.e The book of nothing, The constants of nature. Any book that is readable and the reader comes away with learning something new even if just from a few chapters then that is valuable. And the more one reads books the more ones knowledge expands until eventually the layman like myself can hold a good conversation and have a jolly good think about the universe from a learned point of view. Unfortunately New Theories of the Universe was a tedious read, frankly it was boring. I am not sure if it was meant for someone who is scholarly in the subjects but it certainly isn't for the general public even with an interest in the universe. I forced myself through the second half about two - five pages at a time and determined to reach the end. I got their but had basically forgotten what the first half of the book was about. It goes in my section of my library with books that I didn't get that few pages of new knowledge. Sorry, but I anticipated more but got less. |
| |  |
