If you are interested in Mach's Principle, you will like this book . Experts discuss what Mach really intended when he formulated his principle. The book provides english translations of some classic articles on Mach's Principle, and it discusses some of the lastest research and thinking on the topic. I recommend it very highly.

An absolutely amazing book. The theories presented are beyond interesting. A must read for anyone interested in physics, mathematics and time.

Julian B. Barbour did an excellent job. His overview of the history of celestial ans terrestrial mechanics is really a must have. But I noticed he often uses a kind of sketchy reconstruction. For example what he says about Huygens who did not succeed in creating the very notions of a modern dynamics. This is true, but in the case of Huygens there are strong philosophical reasons for that. Huygens did NOT want to use dynamical concepts. So what is pictured here as a failure seems to be more complex. On that point, JB Barbour follows Richard Westfall. Both, in my opinion, are wrong. Anyway : one must have the book. As I said, it's a masterpiece.

Has no competitor in sight in the field. Nowhere else can you, e.g., find out what Huyghens and Descartes did, and also what Galileo and Copernicus really did, and in such clear, concise language. Reads like a good novel! Also im[portant: the author does not at all color his treatment of the history of mechanics by 'cheerleading' for Mach.

Oddly, the most succinct and lucid statement of Barbour's theory comes, not from him, but from a reader whose email he quotes in the footnotes at the end of the book: "All moments are simultaneous ... My conscious mind feeds them to me in a linear sequence strung out with a bunch of other moments in an illusion of a continuous flow of action." (p. 340, trade paperback edition) Barbour comments that this reader's views are "often very close to my own position."

I see two problems here. First, the hypothesis seems essentially solipsistic - it's not clear if it can ever be tested, proved, or disproved. Second, how can "my conscious mind feed these moments to me" in a world of total stasis, a world where everything is frozen and motionless? Either consciousness itself is exempt from the timelessness of the rest of the system (but Barbour seems to think it isn't) or consciousness, being part of a timeless reality, is frozen and unable to engage in any processes - including the process of "feeding" moments to me. In other words, if time is an illusion created by a filmstrip of single frames being run in our heads, then what is running the movie, and how can the movie run at all when nothing can move?

The theory seems to raise more questions than it answers. Still, questions are always valuable, so - three stars!

There are currently several books dealing with new theories in physics, they are fascinating but I found the "End of Time" a bit disappointing after all the newspaper hype. What I want in a book of this type are three things, firstly to be educated on the general theoretical background, entertainingly presented the history of the subject up to the present day, secondly the author must, as succinctly as possible, explain their theory; show where it supports and where it overturns conventional ideas. Finally the books must present conclusions, sketch out the likely impact of the new concept. The "End of Time" devotes many pages to arguments in favour of the author's thesis, in a way that will bore the general reader but is unlikely to convince the physicist. Near the end of the book my feeling was ok ok you win, just tell me the implications, but that's the problem, the author refuses to speculate, possibly on the spurious grounds that predictions are impossible in a world without time. In summary a long, confusing and eventually a frustrating read. If you want to see how a book of this type should be handled read the unbelievably good "The Inflationary Universe" by Alan H. Guth.

There are currently several books dealing with new theories in physics, they are fascinating but I found the "End of Time" a bit disappointing after all the newspaper hype. What I want in a book of this type are three things, firstly to be educated on the general theoretical background, entertainingly presented the history of the subject up to the present day, secondly the author must, as succinctly as possible, explain their theory; show where it supports and where it overturns conventional ideas. Finally the books must present conclusions, sketch out the likely impact of the new concept. The "End of Time" devotes many pages to arguments in favour of the author's thesis, in a way that will bore the general reader but is unlikely to convince the physicist. Near the end of the book my feeling was ok ok you win, just tell me the implications, but that's the problem, the author refuses to speculate, possibly on the spurious grounds that predictions are impossible in a world without time. In summary a long, confusing and eventually a frustrating read. If you want to see how a book of this type should be handled read the unbelievably good "The Inflationary Universe" by Alan H. Guth.