The World Within the World written by John D. Barrow is a book about the laws of Nature and explains why things are as they are. This book presents a wide-ranging interdisciplinary study of the evolving concept of the laws of Nature. Chaos, black holes, inflation and superstrings are just some of the subjects that are given attention to in this book. Also, mathematical topics are discussed and why this is important to philosophers and scientists, but ever mindful that the reader may not have a serious science background, the author discuses these new ideas in a serious but nontechnical style.

In this book the aim is not simply to pick again upon one of these esoteric fields at the frontiers of fundamental science and attempt to expalin it in simple terms. Rather, it is to pick upon the traitional unspoken assumptions to which we owe all these abstract and pragmatic developments: that the Universe is ordered, that it is logical, that it is mathematical, that it is predictable, that it is governed by something outside ourselves which is the same everywhere, but which has a deep resonance with the workings of our own minds: to explore something of the origin and possible meanings of the idea that there exist "laws of Nature" and some of the unsuspected realms that such an idea has led us.

So, with this being said, I found that unless you have some science background you will not get much use from this book as it is. Also, there is a message in the book, although laws of Nature may be necessary for such grand explanations, broken symmetries, organizing principles, selection effects, and human categories of thought all play essential and irreductible role in augmenting any law of Nature to determine a picture of the Universe in which we live.

This book has seven parts and each of these has various topics that are discussed in detail, giving the reader a dose of historical context along with cutting edge science. From inner space to outer space, there are mathematical laws of Nature that explain what nature is. A changeless world of order and certainty, impartial to our actions and desires.

I found the book can get difficult at times and I had to stop and ruminate, contemplate, and engage in serious thought... not that that wasn't a good thing. This is a book that will make you think.

The World Within the World is a rich and engaging exploration of the concept of laws of nature. Combining cosmology, relativity, quantum mechanics, philosophy of science, and philosophy of mathematics, Barrow asks fundamental questions about the nature of reality and the limits of human understanding: Are there really laws of nature existing independently of us that have been discovered by scientific method, or are the laws we've developed simply the result of order being imposed on the chaotic phenomena of experience by our categories of thought and perception? Why are the laws of nature written in the language of mathematics? Are mathematical laws merely the best approximations we can come up with of a deeper underlying reality which may be non-mathematical? What limits on our understanding of the universe does the mathematical nature of such laws present? For example, do there exist laws of nature which are expressed in terms of non-computable equations whose complexity is so great that they cannot be solved within the lifetime of the universe? If such non-computable laws do exist, we could never discover them due to their inherent complexity.

The World Within the World also addresses some other interesting philosophical questions that have been inspired by developments in modern physics. For example, within the infamously counter-intuitive world of quantum mechanics we find that when neutrons are fired at a screen with two openings, even when fired one at a time, they arrive at a target screen behind the double-slit screen like particles would be expected to, making distinct hits on the target screen, yet creating an overall interference pattern which is exhibited in wave phenomena such as water or sound waves. When golf balls are 'fired' in this way through a double-slit screen they do not create an interference pattern. This wave-particle duality is often taught to be a characteristic of light, but it applies to all elementary particles on the subatomic scale. Water and sound waves are waves of a medium--of water and air, respectively. But what does it mean to say that light or a neutron is a wave when these can exist in a vacuum? They are not waves of a medium; rather, they are waves of probability--of information--telling us the probability of finding a photon or a neutron in a particular place when we make a measurement. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle also tells us that when we try to measure both the position and momentum of a particle, not only are we incapable of measuring both simultaneously, but, far more incomprehensibly, both the position and momentum cannot exist at the same time! This implies that such properties, which we are inclined to think of as inherent properties of the particles, do not exist until they are measured. This is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which holds that particles are really nothing more than probability wave functions that expand infinitely across the universe and simply have a far higher likelihood of being measured at a certain spot; in other words, the actual location of a particle does not exist until it is measured! In the terminology of quantum mechanics, the act of measurement collapses the wave function.

There is one way out of this dilemma which is consistent with quantum mechanics and allows the position of a particle to be a real property of the particle and not merely a measured property existing only when a measurement takes place. However, while the alternative keeps the observer separate from the observed, it is equally troubling: The Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that every time the measurement of a particle's position or momentum is made, all possible results obtain--the result we measure obtains in our world, and all the other possible results obtain in an infinite number of worlds for that single act of measurement. This implies that there are an infinite number of versions of you existing in these parallel worlds making these measurements! And you thought science fiction was strange! Perhaps at this point the best option is to maintain that--despite its unprecedented success in explaining the physical world--quantum mechanics is incomplete and therefore neither of the two interpretations adequately characterize the real world. The fact that we have yet to develop a successful quantum theory of gravity suggests that either general relativity or quantum mechanics is incomplete, if not both.

Barrow addresses other interesting issues in modern physics in this book: the categorization of the hundreds of particles that have been discovered into three basic types based on their interactions with the four forces of nature; the possibility of the existence of 10 or 26 dimensions and why only 3 dimensions of space grew larger than microscopic size; the attempt to unify the four forces of nature into a 'Theory of Everything' (TOE); a brief overview of superstrings, a possible candidate for a TOE; some practical diffulties in actually finding a TOE; features of cosmology that make it uniquely different from other sciences; whether the universe is infinite or finite in extent; the evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang; the difficulties in determining whether the universe with expand forever and die a 'Heat Death' or whether it will collapse to a 'Big Crunch'; and the different 'arrows of time' that cosmologists employ. There is also a very interesting dialogue debate in chapter 5 (p. 247-254 in the paperback edition) about whether abstract objects such as numbers exist independently of the mind in some Platonic realm outside of the physical universe, outlining the arguments for and against Platonic abstract objects.

This book contains the report written by John Murdoch on the ethnological studies of a US Army Signal Corps expedition to Point Barrow (actually about 7 or 8 miles south of the point itself) undertaken as part of the US effort in the International Polar Year. Although the primary thrust of the IPY was geophysical, the Point Barrow expedition collected a good amount of ethnological data, and large amounts of carefully documented material culture. Murdoch produced a very thorough well-illustrated report after returning from the field. Even skimming it should bring tremendous respect for the complex and ingeneous, yet sustainable, technology which enabled the Inupiat to not only survive, but thrive, in what is generally considered one of the harshest environments on Earth.

This volume contains that report along with a number of other documents produced by various members of the expedition, which prove to be very interesting supplements to Murdoch's report. The reproduction is excellent. Although it is in slighly smaller format than the original, the drawings and illustrations are still clear.

The primary audience will probably be those who are interested in pre- and post-contact Inupiat material culture, especially that of North Alaska, but others will find things of interest in it as well. Certainly, for anyone who needs to identify artifacts, whether archaeological or ethnographic, from this general region, this is the best resource there is besides an Elder. In fact, Murdoch has illustrations of things that some Elders of today have never seen in use.

This book is a true classic. The Smithsonian should be thanked for reissuing it, as the original was hard to find, expensive, and a bit heavy and delicate for field or lab use. This paperback version is both inexpensive enough and portable enough for such use. I actually have two copies (lab & office) so that the original can stay unmolested on the shelf.

I am taking a course, through our community college, on Microsoft Office 2000. Our instructor made a general recommendation for simply written books like this. I had seen the "Dummies" books before, but had never looked at one. This book is awesome! It is so general and easy to understand. I can actually read and absorb the information easily. Thanks to the authors for bringing things down to the average person's level of understanding. Now I feel like I could tackle almost anything using Office 2000.

I was extremely satisfied with my purchase. The book was received in excellent condition, and quicker than I expected! I will definitely be making more purchases from this seller. Thank You!

A friend dropped this book off for me to look at, and I almost never opened it because I am generally not impressed the "Dummies" series. However, this book is wonderfully refreshing exception and every office should have it. It has a brief Overview/Reference of W98, and every aspect of Office. It is worded well, and shows you step-by-step how to do a great many common tasks with office. It does not cover any of the subjects in depth, and did not cover FrontPage very well, but I still have to give it a 5. It is a well organized, well written overview of Office and I feel It is a must have. By the way, I bought his copy and about four more since to cut down on technical support calls from my clients.

Barrow, an astronomer at the University of Sussex when this book was published, provides an entertaining and informative account of the foundations and philosophy of mathematics. Do mathematicians invent or discover mathematics? What 'reality' do mathematical entities like pi have? What accounts for what physicist Eugene Wigner has called, in a now-famous paper, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" (299)? After an interesting account of the history of counting and numbers, Barrow discusses in succeeding chapters the philosophies of formalism, inventionism, intuitionism, and platonism, a sophisticated version of which he seems to favor. Perhaps most mathematical workers follow what Alfred Korzybski called "the 'christian science' school of mathematics, which proceeds by faith and disregards entirely any problems of the epistemological foundations of its supposed `scientific' activities" (Science and Sanity 748). I commend Barrow because he considers these epistemological questions important and writes about them so engagingly. Barrow's discussions of theories and personalities provide useful background for understanding mathematical foundations. As for Barrow's conclusions, from a non-aristotelian view, the appeal of platonism seems understandable as an example of identification, the confusion of orders of abstracting. Barrow doesn't seem to consider that mathematicians may both invent and discover mathematics. He seems so taken with the effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences that the notion of mathematical entities existing solely as high-order abstractions in human nervous systems seems insufficient to him. As Korzybski pointed out, we live in a world of multi-dimensional, ordered structures or relations. It does not seem unreasonable, then, that we can map this world with an exact language of relations, i.e., mathematics. But as Korzybski also pointed out many times, "the map is not the territory."

As someone who barely got through algebra in high school, I can attest that Barrow's book is lucid and engrossing even for the equation-challanged. The book is entertaining and well-written---he manages to hold the reader's interest because he sticks to the interesting theory that underlies mathematics, rather than the nitty-gritty of blah-equals-blah-blah-blah. Why DOES mathematics work so well to describe the real world? We may never know, but it's good to ask the question.

When I took algebra in high school I didn't like it. My teachers seemed to say "All the interesting problems have been solved so just memorize your textbook for the quiz on Friday, please." Not a presentation that would inspire most teenagers.

The books starts with an introduction that really grabbed me. It talks about how most scientific theories are expressed in the language of mathematics and then asks a simple question: Why? What is it about the world that makes it so mathematical? The introduction clearly lays out mathematics deepest secret: Beneath all the formulas and proofs there is something about math that is mysterious and profound. This was not something my high school teacher pointed out.

The following chapters present the history of mathematics in an style that manages to inform about important concepts without getting bogged down in formulas. The author strikes a delicate balance between writing about mathematicians as people and writing about their work and its importance.

In the end, he doesn't have any answers about the deep questions posed in the introduction. But after reading his book it didn't matter because at least I now understood better what the questions meant and could appreciate their profound, abstract beauty. Sort of like the difference between looking up in the night sky and seeing little points of light versus seeing the vast universe. Excuse my hyperbole, but that's the best I can explain it.

Anyway, I highly recommend the book to anyone who might read this review. I especially recommend it to students just beginning their math studies. This book will help them appreciate the subject in a way that no textbook ever could.

This was not quite what I expected it to be, which was an overview of the latest ultimate theories of physics. The book does go into that topic to some extent, but it is as much about the philosophy of science as about science itself: not just the ultimate theories, but what constitutes a successful theory and what characteristics an ultimate theory should have. As such, it addresses such topics as symmetry (especially the broken symmetry believed to explain the four basic forces), compressibility (the capability of a simple theory to explain complex consequences), constants, laws, the anthropic principle, initial conditions, and much more. It's difficult going at times, and I can't pretend that I understood all of it. However, I think it's a book that will bear rereading, which I will plan on doing. Oh, and the quotes at the beginning of each section are great!

'Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary limit.'
- Alan Turing

My first academic love was theoretical physics (which some of you may have discerned from my reviews; although my life has gone in a different direction, occasionally a book with the title 'Introduction to Cosmology' pops up). I was going to be a astrophysicist; when I arrived at university, however, the department told me that I knew too much for the introductory courses, and to come back in a few years to take the advanced courses. Alas, I studied on my own and never returned officially (still an honourable course in astronomy, which has a great love and need of the dedicated amateur), and went professionally in different directions.

However, I should have known even back then what my ultimate directions would be (as John Barrow's book, 'Theories of Everything' has as a subtitle The Quest for Ultimate Explanation, I may slip into a lot of 'ultimates' here), for when I picked up the book in the shop and began reading the first page, I knew I had to read it (and read it right away) when I came across the following quotation:

'Suddenly scientists are asking such questions in all seriousness and theologians find their thinking pre-empted and guided by the mathematical speculations of a new generation of scientists. Ironically, few theologians have an adequate training in physics to keep abreat of the details, and few physicists have a sufficient appreciation of the wider questions to make a fruitful dialogue easy.'

The idea in physics of The Theory of Everything is the quest for that single, all-encompassing, simple set of principles by with all other laws, actions, and outcomes can be explained (and possibly predicted) with unerring logic. Some physicists of late have begun to have confidence that human progress is very close to this.

Perhaps this is a misplaced confidence; one is reminded of the Director of the Prussian Patent Office a century ago who stated that the office might as well close soon, since everything that was going to be invented probably already had been. There was a confidence in Newtonian-based world views that was very strong indeed (a mighty fortress, one might say, to support the altar of physics) -- this was discovered to be a golden calf, which was in turn melted by Einstein et al. It the 'Theory of Everything' another idol?

'Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the Universe is at root a unity.'

So much of mathematics, physics, philosophy, and other disciplines have, even if it is unspoken, a sense of unity at heart, in which this belief plays a part.

'Indeed, the concept of a Supreme Being is in all cultures a more primitive and natural notion than that of laws of Nature. It could well be argued that no culture arrived at a robust concept of the latter without a preliminary concept of the former.'

The book quickly becomes more theoretical and scientific in nature; this is not a text for the faint hearted. This is what Barrow meant by theologians (and, by extension, the general public) not being aware or familiar with the details. In discussing symmetries in the universe and the idea of creation ex nihilo, Barrow brings in ideas of overall net roation and electric charge to the universe (where is the evidence for these?), and basic conservation principles, in part to dispute the idea that creation ex nihilo somehow violates a cosmological principle.

'The total mass-energy of all the constituents of a finite Universe appears to be always equal in magnitude but opposite in sign to the total gravitational potential energies of those particles. It could suddenly thus appear spontaneously without violating the conservation of mass-energy.'

This is beyond any systematic theology text I've ever encountered.

The science is sound, and fair in presentation. Barrow presents opposing viewpoints with clarity and critique. Barrow expands into mathematics (of course, incompleteness theorems, that gem of philosophical speculation that is so often misapplied beyond its narrow purview, is here), biological ideas of organising principles (is this natural or a fluke, or did it require an outside intervention?), time and space difficulties and paradoxes, and more.

Of course, there is a caution in the 'Theory of Everything'. This is not, in fact, meant to explain everything. It will not explain human inspiration (i.e., the Homeric epics, Shakespeare's plays, or Mozart's Requiem); it will not explain emotions; ultimately, it will not explain God.

'There is no formula that can deliver all truth, all harmony, all simplicity. No Theory of Everything can ever provide total insight. For, to see through everything, would leave us seeing nothing at all.'

The author believes that it is beyond the human reach to find a 'Theory of Everything', in other words an abbreviated representation - an algorithm or formula - of the logic behind the Universe's properties. A theory that unites the four fundamental forces.
His reasoning is solid, but sometimes difficult to follow. Not an easy read.
Here are a few of his arguments: (1) the world (e.g. chaotic processes) is not totally algorithmically compressible. (2) many constants of Nature got their values in the earliest stages of the universe. From the predictions emerging from the 'Theory of Everything, we should arrive at the current structure of the universe. This is nearly impossible. (3) If random elements of the Universe, inherited from its quantum origins, differ significantly from place to place, the knowledge of its global structure from our point of view will be incomplete. (4) Superstrings and its corollary 'many dimensions'. What happened with the vanished dimensions?
To the bargain, the author believes that even if we should find this theory, the factual impact on our life would be very limited.
Why then are all members of the physicists guild searching fot it? And why writes the author such a challenging book about it? It is like the quest of the Holy grail in the Middle Ages. The sheer beaty of Einstein's simple formula left everybody dumbfounded, but the person who will find a new equation 'for everything' would provoke a long lasting general silence followed by a burst of applause nearly as loud as the Big Bang.
By the way, I am not so sure that the impact on our life of this theory would be limited. The theory of general relativity and his counterpart 'quantum mechanics' had an immense impact on our daily lives, for the good and the bad.
A must read for everybody interested in the fate of the universe, or better multiverse.

Great Story! Lots of facts, fairly accurate except for Bonniand Clyde's actual death event. This book uses the Bonnie and Clyde movie version of their fatal end. This is not the way it happened.

Running With Bonnie and Clyde may be the best book yet on Texas' favorite Depression outlaws. The extensive documentation is impressive, priceless interviews with now deceased Barrow and Parker kinfolk, former associates and adversaries, and previously unpublished photos makes this an invaluable addition to the library of any '30's gangster aficionado. But problems exist here, too. One is that the recollections of one of Phillips' principal informers, former Barrow gangster Ralph Fults, are sometimes questionable. From past testimony of James Mullens, Floyd Hamilton and others, it is well authenticated that the Eastham prison break was planned from the inside by Raymond Hamilton and that Clyde became involved almost by accident, which makes one wonder about Fults' allegation that the Barrow gang was formed with the intention of oneday staging a crashout. The $33,000 bank robbery Phillips reports in 1932, based on the recollections of Fults, raises more questions than it answers. Phillips gives no exact date for the robbery but, on pages 68-69, reports that it was of the First National Bank in Lawrence, Kansas. In his source notes, however, Phillips expresses uncertainty as to the location of the bank or the amount stolen and admits that the crime "cannot be verified by hard evidence" but accepts the story on the trusting basis that it was the only Fults tale that didn't check out! So was the robbery in Lawrence or somewhere else? Was $33,000 taken? Or more? Or less? Where do these details come from? If Fults provided this information it should have been easy to confirm through contemporary newspaper accounts. Phillips owes his readers a major explanation here. Later, describing the ambush of Bonnie and Clyde, Phillips wrongly records that every man in the posse was armed with a Browning Automatic Rifle. The only B.A.R. present, other than the three in Clyde's car, was fired by Deputy Ted Hinton, as both he and Hamer reported. Phillips seems to have a thing about Brownings, though. A photo on page 245 shows an officer armed with a Remington Model 8 Autoloader--the type of rifle carried by Hamer and Gault at the ambush--which is misidentified as a B.A.R. The author's gun expertise may be somewhat lacking but guns play such a prominent role in the Bonnie and Clyde story that it demands accurate firearm identification. This may be the best Bonnie and Clyde book yet but it remains seriously flawed.

This is the story of a criminal in the 1930's who was part of the Barrow gang, and whom we've previously heard little if any about. Though a good part of the book is about his time spent with Bonnie and Clyde, it's also about his own career in crime and the atrocities of the Texas prison system of the era. The book is well written and also very well researched. The author is to be applauded for his extensive list of resources. Mr. Fults, the ex-gang member, does put a sympathetic spin on Barrow and Parker. But he was there, and he got to know them in a different way than a lawman or reporter. The book contains some good photos, many which were new to me. Well done!

In this small but chubby book author gives an account of history of Physics and goes into new Physics. Starts with greeks and he hates Philosophers, passes through classical Mechanics into Quantum physics with short stories of about the paradoxes and philosophical implications of Quantum Physics and into Cosmology. Half of the book with introduction and other half with Cosmological concepts. A lot of concepts are covered.
Particle Physics, Quantum Vacuum, Black Holes, Anthropologic Principles.Author has a good way of explaining things.
I enjoyed reading it.

Judging from my own experience of reading such serious science books, it may be important to gain readers' attention by some measures like nice design, adequate amount of book, and easy vocabularies. At my first glance through this small and thick book, the contents seem to be too much for readers to concentrate. As a whole, this must be one of Barrow's magnificent books. Especially, the subtiles with the quotations of the famous persons are very impressive. This book also leads me to more deeply understand what made me confusing in terms of some new cencepts. I hope his another version of simpler edition will come to public sooner or later.

I do not understand why this book deserves a diferent name other than "The World within the World", being just a second edition with minor changes. I bought the book via internet, but if I had had the opportunity to revise it in a bookstore, surely I would not buy it. Two sections has been eliminated from the original, and five has been added (twenty pages or so) in this new version. If you realize that the book contains over a hundred sections,you will be convinced that the changes are too few to justify another title. The new sections are: The second string revolution; Questions abot the superfuture; Time travel; The outer limit; Cosmology, stars and the life. The contents of these sections are included in others of the (excellents) books written by Barrow. For example, the section Time Travel is contained in the section "Time Travel: is the universe safe for historians?" from the book "Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits" (Oxford U. P. 1998). Summarizing, if you never read "The world within the world" (Oxford U. P., 1998), you now have a good opportunity to enjoy it in its update version; otherwise, it is preferable to purchase "Pi in the Sky", "Impossibility" or anyone of the tantalizing publications from this great writer.I rate this book with five stars, the same stars corresponding to "The world...", because is the same wonderful book.

About half of this book discusses the cutting edge of physics (with the necessary history) regarding the fate of the universe, and in particular, how vacuum (nothingness) in its modern quantum understanding plays a central role in the universe's evolution and ultimate future.

The other half of this book is about philosophical issues such as the history of the concept of nothing and the number zero, the religious concepts of the history and future of the universe, and the mathematical history of zero and infinity.

As the previous reviews of this book, and indeed, its subtitle "Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas about the Origins of the Universe" imply, this should have been a book about Physics and in particular, the physics of vacuums (quantum zero-point energy). One would expect a detailed treatment of this, without the extensive digressions from the primary topic. If that is what you are expecting, you will be disappointed; it is why I rate this book three stars. I was bored by the parts of the book which digressed from the layman's physics discussion.

On the other hand, the half or perhaps 60% of the book Barrow devotes to discussion of physics was very well written. If you have read extensively other layman's books on physics (such as Greene's Elegant Universe, Treiman's Odd Quantum, Lederman's God Particle, and the like) then about a third or a half of this may seem familar, but restated in Barrow's clear descriptive prose. As for the rest, in about a decade of reading layman's physics books, I had not encountered - or had forgotten or previously misunderstood - the remainder. In this sense, the book is definitely worthy of five stars, and was very interesting. He explains, for the first time that I actually could understand the why of it rather than the fact of it's existence, the "why" of the unification of the three forces (excluding gravity) at high energies/temperatures, the "why" of black holes radiating away all their mass, and much of the "what" of Einstein's cosmological constant, which he calls the lambda force (as Einstein used the symbol lambda to represent it). Many other things are discussed along the way, and extensive notes for other reading are provided - many of which reference his own works.

In sum, I feel this book could have been shorter OR have expanded upon the physics at the expense of the philosophy and religious discussion. Of the 300 pages of prose (the remainder being extensive footnotes and index), be aware that perhaps only 150 or 170 will be of interest to those who want a solid physics discussion. If you have wider interests, the remainder will also likely be of interest; some of it can also be found in the earlier chapters of Gullburg's "Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers."

Barrow's curious and original book is founded on the analogy that relates the idea of zero in mathematics to the idea of emptiness, or vacuum, in the material world. Far from denoting nothing at all, the symbol "0" denotes a rule-governed numerical quantity that can be added, subtracted, multiplied, and in a limited sense divided; similarly, physicists now know that the situation in a perfectly dark room, for example, is quite different from what it would be if there were no such thing as light. With great erudition Barrow (applied mathematics and theoretical physics, Cambridge Univ., UK) traces the history of "0," the classical and medieval arguments for and against the existence of empty space, and finally modern theories of the origin (from nothing?) of the cosmos that contains us. The writing is clear and lively, and the sections on cosmogony are authoritative and up-to-date, though they will be heavy going for many readers. Very illuminating. General readers; upper-division undergraduates through professionals.

This is my first Barrow book and I totally enjoyed it. I am saying this after coming to the conclusion that the minor errors, inconsistancies and British spellings in the American edition are due entirely to the lack of science expertise of the Random House editors who translated the book from UK english to American english.

Physics is a big subject but the author found a narrow and well defined thread to follow that starts with the need for a zero placeholder in number systems and ends with the recently discovered expansion of the universe and zero point energy. He uses history, philosophy, mathematics and physics to move the reader along this thread. The delving into real physics concepts is so fearlessly done that it may turn off the Walter Mitty types who dream of Nobel Prizes. The math used is oriented toward logic rather than calculation.

I can see where some new readers in physics might get lost in a very few places because names of theories are bandied about with no attached explanation of what or how. But this may be due to editor mishap rather then author intention. Stuff like this can be yet another reason to read another physics book. Like Roger Penrose's books, John Barrow's reflect an active researcher's ideas as well as accepted theory so don't be suprised that you may be reading about some things that no one else in the field supports. I think this is the reason why I like this book so much anyway.

This book is a revolutionary treatise on cosmology and the fate of the human species. It is frankly the most breathtaking book I have ever read.

While quite technical in parts, other parts are definitely within the grasp of anyone who learned high school science well and is comfortable with algebra. For instance, it argues that we are probably the only intelligent species in the Milky Way, and that it is our fate to colonise our home galaxy. That, and other arguments in this book should have led to a cover story in Time and Newsweek. It did not, presumably because the astrophysics community views Tipler as being beyond the pale. This book also contains a superb and lengthy discussion of many fascinating topics in the history and philosophy of science. This discussion remains valuable regardless of the future evolution of our understanding of the universe.

I should grant that if it is the case that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and that there is not enough mass in the universe to reverse the process, as astrophysics now suspects, then parts of Barrow and Tipler's argument are in trouble. Also, the other great visionary among modern physicists, Freeman Dyson, has been known to disagrees with Tipler. But I still agree with the authors that the stars are our destiny.

This is _the_ classic on the Anthropic Principle, and is a massive elucidation on the diverse aspects of the subject plus a compendium of additional info of encyclopedic proportions. The Anthropic Principle is and remains controversial with a complex literature subsequent to this book, but whatever the current status of the issues this book remains solidly relevant. The footnotes alone are worth the price of the book, and are a useful source of study leads and information on everything from information theory to the teleomechanists of the nineteenth century. One of the side issues explored, for example, is the place of teleological principles in the history of science, and their careful consideration by many in the great generation of physicists in the wake of Newton. The ending of the book deals with the spectacular vistas of theories of the future of the universe and contains a nice treatment of Penrose's space-time diagram with its 'achieved infinity' of the Omega Point.

I have read a lot of science books dealing with cosmology, consciousness, experimental physics, and philosophy. To explore the possibilities of Anthropic Principle with these authors has been really fantastic. Great historical perspective gained with so many 'new' ideas. It's hard to believe it is some 14 years since written as there seems to be so many places to go with this nugget of balast - it all seems fresh and interesting.

I want to buy 2 more copies - but all outlets say 'out of stock'-
Hope it's available again soon!!

"Constants of Nature" is an excellent overview of a fascinating topic--the origins and significance of the constants of the universe. It prompted me to spend a great deal of my free time digging around for more information on many of the topics it addresses, which is always a ringing endorsement for a work of non-fiction.

However, it's not perfect. The book's subtitle ("From Alpha to Omega") is somewhat deceptive--the "meat" of the book (after the first few chapters) deals almost entirely with the fine structure constant (alpha). Barrow talks a great deal about constants in general, but never devotes much time to any of the others specifically. Furthermore, at times, Barrow seems to become sidetracked--an inexplicable discussion of the value of contemplating "alternative histories" (i.e., speculating what would have happened if Germany had won World War II, and similar endeavors) awkwardly interrupts the flow of one chapter, for instance. Also, the book has several errors that were immediately obvious to me (for instance, it says light from the Sun takes 3 seconds to reach the Earth; the correct value is more than 8 minutes), which makes me suspect that there are probably many more errors that I missed, but which would be obvious to someone with a marginally greater degree of physics sophistication.

However, perhaps the biggest disappointment was in the introduction of the values of the Planck length, Planck time, etc., all of which are central to the book. Barrow justifies the signifiance of these values simply by stating that they are the only values of the appropriate dimensions that can be derived by combining certain other physical constants straightforward ways. However, from there he makes the logical leap that the Planck distance, for instaince, is the "natural" measure of length in the universe. This is certainly a fair statement, but it's hardly justifiable to make that statement based simply on the fact that it can be derived from a number of other constants--one could have selected another collection of fundamental constants and come up with a completely different "natural" unit of length. In short, the line of reasoning does not justify the conclusion.

In all, this is a thought-provoking work, but it's often short on detail and had a tendency to leave me with more questions than answers. The more technical reader will probably wish for more thorough arguments throughout; however, it's still an enjoyable read and a fine attempt at popularizing a difficult area of physics.

Prof. Victor V. Vasiliev from Moscow, Russia

In the whole the book of the author is interesting enough, cognitive, and duly.

It is possible, that schoolboy addresses to me with the question: how I do better understand the physics? I, certainly, have advised him to keep in mind, and still remember in his memory, and stuck in his memory THE CONSTANT OF PHYSICS, and to understand this constant, which exist in this remarkable science. It is OK! But that can do the specialist on physics, or teacher of physics - yes it is simply must to have this small book on his worker table always, and perforce peek in it.

The constants in NATURE - this not simply numerals, this salt of physics, its supporting points, its history of approach of our knowledge of nature to truth, and to possibility of nature management, and a great deal another.

As a whole it is simply interesting. Well if some person knows or heard that there is a proton and a electron - it is good. But if one knows, that the proton is heavy of electron in 1836 once it is simply good lad!

The book is do good, useful and instructive.

We couldn't expect, inhabitants of any other world to know what a meter is. But we could expect them to know pi, or the ratio of the weight of a proton compared to an electron; that's a number, about 1836, without any meters or grams behind it, and it is considered one of the "constants of nature." There are other such constants, and they form the subject of _The Constants of Nature: From Alpha to Omega - The Numbers That Encode the Deepest Secrets of the Universe_ (Pantheon Books) by John D. Barrow. The book, which is the sort to be enjoyed by anyone who liked puzzling through such works as _A Brief History of Time_, paradoxically has a main topic about the constants: What if they are not constant?

If, for instance, the proton / electron ratio were all of a sudden a little different, atoms might fly apart instead of maintaining their tiny orbital systems on which matter as we know it depends. There are other important numbers that we think are constant, like Planck's constant, the charge on the electron, and the speed of light. These three are linked within another constant, the fine structure constant. All these constants seem to have turned out just right for humans to have evolved to be investigating their physics. They all seem to be surprisingly bio-friendly. As surely as some insist that a conscious designer made the wonderfully baroque varieties of living things on our planet, others (who may admit that evolution rather than a conscious designer was at work) will say some godly entity picked the constants. But Barrow explains many alternatives, universes with the constants possibly turning out in some other way, and also explains ways that these universes might have come into being. If there are lots of universes out there, with lots of different constant combinations, it is no longer surprising that we are in one of them with the constants tuned just right to produce life, and intelligent life at that.

But in our own universe, are the constants constant? There have been some very interesting and comforting confirmations of constancy which are reported here. Barrow himself, however, has been a member of a team using a different technique to spot a shift, over a longer period of time, and, well, a shift seems to be there. There is not much you can count on in this strange universe; whether our strange universe is more strange or less for having produced us is not a question that science can answer. There are plenty of others pending; this engrossing and clearly-written book brings lots of them up. Are our constants linked to an expansive universe? Do they evolve or cycle? Are there plenty of other universes out there already, in a multiverse of possible worlds? The current view of cosmology is clearly presented here, although it is very peculiar; and the answers to these questions will be more peculiar still.