Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
Loading... The Nature of Space and Time (original 1996; edition 1996)by Stephen W. Hawking, Roger Penrose
Work InformationThe Nature of Space and Time by Stephen Hawking (1996)
None Loading...
Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book. No current Talk conversations about this book. This delightful little volume is essentially the transcript of a series of lectures given by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose at the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge. While given to a technical audience, the book is fairly readable. Still, the more you know about general relativity, the more you will get out of it. I read it when I was a teenager and enjoyed it, even if I was often pretty puzzled. Even now, after obtaining a PhD in physics, I can still enjoy it and I am only a little bit puzzled. "Time is the fire in which we burn." Delmore Schwartz "...time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." Jean-Luc Picard I found the information in this set of 3 lectures to be somewhat interesting but because I am not a student (or practitioner) of science I found it to be a bit too specific to the field of physics/quantum mechanics/advanced maths/etc. for my general interest. That said, one big problem I have with this is that he mentions god several times, and given there is no proof of god, why is he continually referring to a scientific "nothing" in his lectures? Even though I am not a scientist, the fact he mentions god tells me his science is not completely rooted in reality but rather at least in some part is rooted in mythology, and that tells me he lives in a world in which I do not live. no reviews | add a review
Belongs to Publisher SeriesIs abridged inNotable Lists
Einstein said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. But was he right? Can the quantum theory of fields and Einstein's general theory of relativity, the two most accurate and successful theories in all of physics, be united into a single quantum theory of gravity? Can quantum and cosmos ever be combined? In The Nature of Space and Time, two of the world's most famous physicists-Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time) and Roger Penrose (The Road to Reality)-debate these questions.The authors outline how their positions have further diverged on a number of key issues, including? the spatial geometry of the universe, inflationary versus cyclic theories of the cosmos, and the black-hole information-loss paradox. Though much progress has been made, Hawking and Penrose stress that physicists still have further to go in their quest for a quantum theory of gravity. No library descriptions found. |
Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers
Google Books — Loading... GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)530.11Natural sciences and mathematics Physics Physics Theoretical Physics RelativityLC ClassificationRatingAverage:
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |
In “The Nature of Space and Time by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose” by Stephen Hawking in the lecture "Quantum Cosmology"
"We should think of twistor space as the space in terms of which we should describe physics."
In “The Nature of Space and Time by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose” by Roger Penrose in the lecture "The Twistor View of Spacetime"
"These lectures have shown very clearly the difference between Roger and me. He's a Platonist and a positivist. He's worried that Schrödinger's cat is in a quantum state, where it is held alive and held dead. He feels that can't correspond to reality. But that doesn't bother me. I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus pap. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements. Quantum theory does this very successfully. It predicts that the result of an observation is either that the cat is alive or that it is dead. It is like you can't be slightly pregnant: you either are or you aren't."
In “The Nature of Space and Time by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose” by Stephen Hawking in the lecture "The Debate"
Can I write a review on such a book? Hawking and Penrose... It's staggering...I don't even know what day the mailman comes...After having re-read this oldie after Hawking's passing, I'd say it depends on where you are in the universe, whether you're on/near some sizeable object (of mass), its rotation, distance from other masses, or whether you live in my neck of the woods...When in doubt I always follow "the flat earth" rule (Medieval behaviour is so "in" now). The world is the centre of (my own)) universe that you/I live in and it's getting flatter everyday. Which hopefully means you can see further and observe when others perform the same behaviour. Or ask them. Preferably in a suit of armour while riding a horse. Possibly a lance too. (Until you understand the society you live in). I'm all for a flat and cubist planet! Our time is here! And it'd be easier to fence. And we could launch spaceships off the corners. Uncannily, the mailman knows when I'm on the phone, asleep or having a quiet moment on the throne...I sniff a time conspiracy here (*It'll End in Tears theme music*)
When it comes to Quantum Theory, the math in the book includes every possible outcome, and the predictions it makes are simply probabilities - e.g. there's a 1% chance X will happen, 90% chance Y will happen and 9% chance Z will happen. How you choose to interpret this is still up for grabs, if you go with Everett's "Many Worlds Interpretation" idea then all possibilities are equally real and actually happen in different universes; if you go with the Copenhagen Interpretation then the wave-function of "possibilities" collapses down to one single result. On a fundamental level, whichever way you choose to interpret it (there's about 8 main contenders for interpretation) the math remains unchanged, and the possibility remains that the math itself is the "truth" and there is no further interpretation, usually called the "shut the fuck up and calculate" interpretation (my favourite).
Bottom-line: This is not a book à la Smolin, i.e., it's not for laymen. I still remember some of the reviews I read in 2010 when the second edition of the book came out. Hilarious! E.g., "Clearly the work of two great minds" (possible Translation - "I didn’t understand the bits I speed read, but they looked dead clever and I have to say summat"...). ( )