Hawking is no master of the written word. Early on, he warns us not to consult his earlier books for more detail - because they are "quite unreadable". He also admits that, during the production of this book, his editor bombarded him with comments and questions. The impact of this editorial input is plain. The book wallows from unnecessarily long complex sentences written in the passive sense to snappy anecdotes from Hawking's life.

I found the early chapters very useful as overviews of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. The middle chapters - on black holes and the origin of the Universe - were clearly written with enthusiasm.

However, that enthusiasm seemed to fade towards the end of the book. The chapter on the arrows of time seems to have been lifted from an old speech. Here's what I'm about to tell you: this is what I'm saying: this is what I've just told you.

Also, the explanation of the cosmological arrow of time left a lot of questions hanging. Question: What will happen when the Universe starts to contract - will people start to experience time running backwards? Answer: Intelligent life could not exist because, by then, all the stars will have burned out. Well, OK - but does that answer whether time is in reverse or not?

Chapter 10 introduces string theory. Clearly this is an incredibly complicated subject and not capable of being explained in a book entitled "Brief History". However, the way the subject is introduced and then dropped is tantalising. Apparently, string theories are only consistent if space-time has either ten or twenty-six dimensions. All these extra dimensions are curled up into space of a very small size. I, for one, would have liked more explanation of what that means.

In summary, a useful but frustrating book that varies in tone as the pages turn. I feel a better populist book would have resulted if Hawking had used a ghost writer to interpret his ideas, rather than simply submitting his own words to the scrutiny of an editor.

This book brings physics to the understanding of the average women and man. It's basically a survey's course on Einstein's relativity and quantum physics with a little black hole and big bang here and there. The real magic of this book is the author himself--reading from a man of his scientific stature, the enigmatic genus in the wheelchair feels more life-like rather than a caricature on a Simpson's episode. I really dug the part how we can speculate that the universe is presently expanding and not contracting. I liked how it made me muse on time and the life that we see today would differ if the universe was headed back to its origin. The book does leave me with a sense of wanting to more, which was good because I went on to read Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" afterwards. "The Elegant Universe" proved to be more elucidating in explaining Einstein's relativity and quantum physics, and goes into a bit of a breadth in black holes and big bangs (in the frame work of string theory). It is true that the book is the successor to "A Brief History of Time", but I feel Brian Greene's book lacks the charm that Hawking has put into his (or the charm that we put into it). At any rate, both very good books for the novice at mind.

This is the second time I have read this book.

The first time I read it was when it was first released in the eighties... the updated 10th anniversary version is pretty much the same thing with some added discussion on string theory... basically more revised.

First of all, the book is not easy to read... especially for those who cannot clear their minds of everything to focus on what is being read. Without a clear mind you will be lost... it takes common sense, good logic and quiet surroundings to successfully read the book in its entirety.

Second, the topics covered are well laid out... from relativity, to quantum mechanics, to the cosmos, to string theory... and even a chapter discussing our existence and how God fits in the picture. All in all, every chapter builds on the next very well, and the visual/"plain English" descriptions blend well with the scientific terminology.

Third, the chapter on string theory (which was recently added) left me feeling a little hungry for more... although it describes what string theory is, I felt a lacking of completeness... probably due to the fact that this is a newer field in theoretical physics.

If you are interested in theoretical physics at all, and wish to understand Einstein's theories of relativity and how the fit with quantum mechanics, then this is the book to start with. After having read this book you will feel the urge to get some other books discussing quantum mechanics, space-time warpings, string theory, wormholes, and black holes.

Believe me... theoretical physics is a very interesting subject that has been developed over many years by brilliant minds... those who are able to open their minds to what the cosmos and the universe have to show can certainly achieve understanding... and perhaps question things further.

Enjoy!

I've always enjoyed Stephen Hawking's writings, as in them he clearly explains things without condescendingly simplifying them, mixes humor with science, and conveys the awe and thrill of scientific discovery. However, once I got past the forward of this book (the only part written my Hawking), I could see that this book was a complete failure. I should have known when someone got me the book; Filkin is a total non-scientist and I now know is scientifically illiterite.

I was first confronted with horrid and sometimes malicious (or at least maddeningly stupid) terminology errors. For example, throughout the book, a brown dwarf is said to be a cooled-down white dwarf. WRONG! A brown dwarf is a starlike object too small to start thermonuclear fusion, so it produces heat and light by contracting; this is the definition according to the International Astronomical Union, the body which defines all astronomical, astrophysical, and cosmological terminology. This is just one of many such errors.
The terminology I had the biggest problem with was the wrongful (indeed, gratuitous) use of the word "creationism." It is relatively apparent that Filkin means the idea that the universe was created at some time, but it is still the wrong word. Either it was placed in there by Filkin (I think unlikely) or the publishers (more likely) to cave to the 45% of this backwards country which seriously believes creationism (in the sense of what the word really means), or (maybe a little more likely)used without thinking. This leads to my next big problem with the book.

Rather than sticking to the science, or at least pointing out how science sharply contrasts with "faith," Filkin spends a large amount of time talking about how science and religion (specifically Christianity) go hand-in-hand. He even makes up malicious falsities, frequently claiming that science at least partially supports Christianity (actually, he said it supporst "creationism"), and that important discoveries were held up by the dogma of "atheist scientists." One particularly despicable example is his claim that after Hubble discovered the Hubble flow, its reality and logical conclusions were denied and held back by "atheist scientists," being unwilling to accept the idea that the universe began (and hence doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics). Nothing could be further from the truth! The Hubble flow was looked upon very skeptically for over a decade because the original measurements put the age of the universe as less than the then-known age of the Earth.

Lastly, there are the contradictory statements. Filkin often makes statements contrary to the 'evidence' he supports it with, if there is any. One example is as follows: "churchgoing" scientist were shunned and forced to hide their beliefs from the 18th to the 20th centuries because (a) they believed in a moment of creation despite the official church policy that the universe was infinite, (b) the "atheist scientists" believed, like Newton, that the universe was infinite, and (c) these two beliefs (the church's and the atheist concepts) are different. If you were paying attention, you'd know these beliefs are NOT different, and hence not in conflict.

I put the book down after a few chapters of being frustrated not learning anything, frequently needing to correct Filkin, and seeing a creationist-propagandist's dream come true (regardless of what Filkin meant, I've seen quotes from this book paraded around by creationists). Finally, I would like to point out my disgust with Hawking for having a book like this sold with his stamp of approval.

As a fan of Stephen Hawking, I was anxious to read this work - looking forward once again to his humorous and "banally-esoteric" approach to science. But I was gravely disappointed. My own fault really, for not reading the editorials, the reviews... or even the jacket!

If I'd only glanced at the bottom of the jacket I would have known that Hawking (whose photo and name are the most dominant features on the cover) had only written the forward to this book, and nothing else. Go figure.

But in spite of that, I began to eat from it greedily, expecting that it would at least resemble the familiar and palatable taste of a Hawking work. I was wrong of course. So then I felt sort of cheated. I guess I resent being hoodwinked. But then maybe I'm just too sensitive.

Apparently, David Filkin's approach to literary science is to be condescendingly simple. Which is okay if you promote it that way. But if you fire your intentions from the ramparts of Stephen Hawking's identity, I think it'd be best to run somewhat parallel to his reader's level of awareness, and allow us the dignity of licking the wounds of our own self-esteems as they occur.

The book attempts to be a chronological outline of scientific discovery. At times though, it becomes almost predictable - and as a result, boring. At other times, it wanders (Hawking wanders too, but he does so for good reasons, and usually has me laughing before he's back on track). Further moments are occupied with repetition, contradiction and redundancies - not to mention a maddening penchant for patting my head, and saying, "I know you didn't understand that, so here's a simpler explanation".

I had the nagging feeling that Filkin was being careful not to overburden the reader with science. Or at least the kind of science that requires explaining. Sure, I'm not a whiz at chemistry, and I flunked calculus twice, but at least give me a chance to feel stupid where I fully expect to. Don't tread softly on me if you think I won't understand it, especially if you're representing Stephen Hawking for Pete's sake!

Don't get me wrong - I am not a Stephen Hawking fanatic with a get-even agenda (I've had my moments with portions of Hawking's work a time or two also). My exasperation is purely clinical - I expect to get what I pay for. Or at least what I see on the cover.

Not recommended

First, Stephen Hawking did not write this book. A journalist wrote it, as a history of the development of our understanding through the sciences and key players of the respective times, culminating in our time and key player, Stephen Hawking.

Second, it is an excellent explanation of how we got to where we are in understanding.

What I like about it most, is what I found in it that is absent in most such books - an honest admitting that, at every turn and at every new development, more questions were generated than answers, and the possible answers have not yet been able to eliminate the possiblity of randomness or creative divinity at the beginning.

In addition, it shows clearly that scientists have made as many mistakes as the religious (i.e. the use of radio-active material at its earliest use in society).

Most importantly, there is a documented record of the historal view that the big bang was a Christian contribution that does not destroy the idea of God, but was supportive of the idea of God, through science. The whole story of Einstein's criticism of Newton's physics (the foundation of astronomy for hundreds of years); the implications of the Hubble expanding universe discovery and Lemaitre's reasoning back to the day before which there was not; this history, so conveniently overlooked in so much of the literature, is the line upon which Stephen Hawking's work with black holes rests.

The theories, the conjectures, the politics, the pride and competition, all these issues are a part of the history of the development of our current understanding, far from the image of scientists as noble altruistic champions in the search for absolute truth that we'd be lead to believe.

And finally, the concept of "faith" is not the property of the religious. This book makes faith a key element in the work of the scientists who believe things they can't see or empirically experience. Faith then becomes the catalyst for the direction in which one searches, and the template of interpretation once something is found.

In this, all people are one, in that, whatever we do, faith must be a component thereof.

Hats off to David Filkin.

Stephen Hawking's The Theory of Everything is a short book that can act as an introduction to the subjects of cosmology raised by modern science, but the book is only that; I preferred his Brief History of Time to this work because it was longer, more detailed, and covered more ground. If you are looking for a very basic introduction to the current thinking of astrophysicists, this is a good book; if you really want to wrestle with the subject at length, you should buy a Brief History of Time, or one of Paul Davies works, such as About Time. If you are looking for a good lecture series on physics, Richard Feynman's Six Easy Pieces and its sequel, Six Not So Easy Pieces is really the finest of this genre.

That being said, the book does a good job in outlining the basic subject matter, discussing the development of the Big Bang theory, and the implications of both the general theory of relativity and quantum physics on the formation of the universe. Hawking is at his best when discussing singularities -- the points of the universe, such as black holes, where the laws of physics break down.

Hawking's story makes him a media favorite. The press (who know minimal physics if any) have for years given him the title "Greatest Mind Since Einstein". He is an excellent physicist and a decent teacher but he is no where near being in the same league as Einstein, Newton or Maxwell. Paul Dirac and Richard Feynman are arguably the two most distinguished 20th Century physicists. Ed Witten may be the most distinguished living physicist.

Feynman (through his lectures transcribed on audiocassette/text formats and books) is perhaps physics's greatest teacher for the layperson and expert alike. Feynman had an unmatched knack for explaining high level physics in an original way. His "Lectures on Physics" is a classic and should be on the bookshelves of all physicists. Feynman's QED is the best non-mathematical description of quantum mechanics ever (QED stands for quantum electrodynamics, for which Feynman shared the Nobel Prize). Read reviews on these and Feynman's other works.

For those who want to read about what many physicists view as the best candidate for a "theory of everything", read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. Hyperspace by Michio Kaku is another great book of the same vane. I cannot recommend these two books enough. These are the best.

I am a Sci-Fi fan that read about science only to be able to understand some difficult Sci-fi story, so i approve this book,also if it is not authorised by Hawking,as a provocation to him to write this book.
So i Sci-fi provocate him also more to write it by reviewing this future book.
In this book Steph examine the theory of everything in this way:let A to be this theory than lim for time going to infinity in A has to prove A but so, for Goedel theorem of incompletess ,than A cannot be a numerical theory.
In fact every book trying to explain a mathematic theory of everything has to start whith an esplication of Why men speaks and dont simply give numbers if it exist a numeric form of theory of everithing.
More precisely,how can mathematics explain that self-awareness was born thanks to unifying and so in a universe of gender(lion+rabbit=;fire+water=;etc.)So a world where usually there is a solution due to the kind of involved objects without need of numbers,and only by science we are going to study situations like (x lions and x wolfs;x Bad and x bad;x doctors and x viruses etc.) Where x is a number or a function and the solution depend from x?
Which is the algebraic transformation that aggregates numbers so much, that they most often, don't need any more to be considered by theyr value becouse their own shape become distinctive?
It is evident that,a part for some hope based on cellular automata and similar,actual mathematics still miss the basic algebraic tool to explain how,our gender world derives from quantity,and basic research in this field is still needed,before approaching an equation that can derive reality from the 4 fondametal-unified forces and from a probality wave till the biggest athom become fondamentally gender with the first molecule.
Anyway, however you are going in this reasoning,Hawking is a perfect walking friend in those questions, for the clarity of his thinking and the deepness of his mathematics(if you where so lucky that you can follow him hight there ),so I again recomend this,not authorised book and hope we all,like steal a litle bit of his knowledge!
But,for the limited aim of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics, Hawking works on blacks holes shows that any border to this universe has to emit a form of Hawking radiation.
So does time to in contraining every interacting thing to the same time.
That Hawking form of radiation propagate to future in form of historic residue and this is why yesterday's rose color is never so bright than today's.
It propagate to past in form of scientific law and so any scientific law has to be mathematically consistent whith the mathematic form expressing Hawking radiation.
So if universe had a border in time it should propagate an infinite energy of Hawking radiation to the past in form of deterministic numerical theory of everithing that by itself should prevent the same existence of the universe.
So Hawking work has already proved not only that the universe cannot have and end, but also that anything inside cannot,been made by the same equation.
So i recommend to buy this book, and dont read it but put it in library without reading it,just looking sometime to the title and dreaming about when it will really come.

As a Cambridge professor who occupies the same chair as Isaac Newton once did, Stephen Hawking is probably the most well-known scientist in the world. His book A Brief History of Time has sold millions of copies, a rare feat for a work of theoretical physics. Hawking's perennial appeal is driven by his theoretical brilliance, his ability to explain difficult concepts to lay audiences, and his heroic, wheelchair-bound struggle with Lou Gehrig's disease.

To be sure, Hawking's reputation is not confined to popular acclaim. Other noted scientists, not known to be motivated by sympathy for Hawking's physical condition, have shown the greatest respect for Hawking's work. As Dr. Kip S. Thorne, a physics professor at CalTech, recently said in a New York Times article, "Stephen can see much farther and much more quickly what nature is likely to be doing than most of the rest of us poor mortals. Very few have his level of understanding and insight, or his ability to ask the right questions that trigger others to work on problems in ways they might never have thought of."

Hawking's book Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays continues his attempt to popularise the findings of cosmology and theoretical physics. The book is composed of one interview and 13 essays, most of which were originally given as lectures. Several of the essays are autobiographical. Hawking recounts, for example, his family history, his birth on the 300th anniversary of Galileo's death, his childhood fascination with electric trains, and his marriage and three children.

Of all the segments of the book, it is the interview that gives the most insight into Hawking's personality and tastes. The interview was broadcast on BBC in 1992 as part of the famous British series called Desert Island Discs, in which interviewees are asked to choose eight records, one luxury object, and one book they would wish to have with them on a desert island. Hawking's choices are Poulenc's Gloria, Brahms's Violin Concerto, Beethoven's String Quartet Op. 132, Wagner's Valkyrie, the Beatles' "Please Please Me," Mozart's Requiem, Puccini's Turandot, Edith Piaf's "Je ne regrette rien," George Eliot's Middlemarch, and a large supply of creme brulee. Hawking even says that if he had both physics and music, he would not want to be rescued from the island.

Hawking's wry sense of humor, which no doubt has sustained him through his physical difficulties, shines through in some of the essays. He says, for example, that he has no plans to write a sequel to A Brief History. "What would I call it?" he says. "A Longer History of Time? Beyond the End of Time? Son of Time?" Could someone travel through a black hole? Probably not, says Hawking, because the destination would be as uncertain as "traveling on some airlines I could name."

Hawking's scientific essays are very approachable for the non-scientist. He seems to have deliberately avoided mathematical equations, saying that he was advised that each equation he included in a book would halve the sales. (He then speculates that he could have sold twice as many copies of A Brief History had he not included the one equation E=MC2!)

Hawking displays a remarkable ability to explain difficult ideas through the use of everyday analogies. Explaining the idea that light is divided into packets called quanta, Hawking says, "It is a bit like saying one can't buy sugar loose in a supermarket but only in kilo gram bags." He compares the expansion of the universe in its earliest stages to the rate of inflation in Germany after World War I. This book is perfect for someone who prefers readability over density and detail.

The one weakness of the book may be its perfunctory treatment of deep philosophical issues. In a few essays, Hawking discusses such profound questions as free will, the existence of God, and the ultimate nature of the universe. It can be frustrating, however, that Hawking never comes to anything more than a wishy-washy conclusion on any of these issues. Hawking pokes fun at the idea of determinism (can one really believe that Madonna was eternally destined to be on the cover of Cosmopolitan?) but finally says that yes, everything is determined, although on the other hand, we really have no way of knowing. "Why does the universe bother to exist?" Hawking asks. He apparently has no opinion on the subject, except the following consolation: "If you like, you can define God to be the answer to that question."

Hawking's resolute agnosticism and firm equivocation on important philosophical questions is not very enlightening. Then again, one doesn't read Hawking for his philosophy but for his fascinating and thought-provoking descriptions of the universe we live in. Few books serve that purpose better than Black Holes and Baby Universes. I strongly recommend it.

My review is based on the no-longer available unabridged audio book. As with "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking discusses various aspects of physics and theories of the universe in a down-to-earth fashion that most of us can handle. His lack of hubris and subtle humor add to the interest and wonders of science he loves to explore. There is some amount of repetition since these essays (written over several years) frequently deal with the same topics, but it is not so repetitive that I found it boring. At times, I found myself listening for short periods, then turning off the tape so I could mull over the possibilities (the energies created by the impact of two black holes, black holes emitting radiation, etc.). It was a little too heavy for early-morning listening (still dark, heavy traffic, no caffeine in my body) but made for excellent afternoon listening. As an unexpected bonus, many essays contain a lot of personal history and details of his experiences growing up during WWII in England.

Lucasian Professor Stephen W. Hawking once again puts "the big questions" into a much more readily digestable format than the general public would normally have access to...and avoids force-feeding us countless equations in doing so!

While there are sections in this book which tend to confound many, it delves into the question of the creation of the universe and the philosophical ramifications of our actually finding the answer to that question. It offers subtle insights into "the man behind the mind" that awes so many people across the globe.

You are reminded many times that it's not the body which restricts what can be accomplished, but the mind...and Hawking's is one mind which knows no apparrent bounds!

While I must admit that this book contains a number of repetitions, this is noted at it's outset as an "at times irritating" byproduct of teh fact that the book is conprised of several essays written over a number of years. This relatively minor irritatation aside, if you are planning to purchase "A Brief History of Time", this is an excellent book as preparation for it.

I would highly reccommend both books to anyone with a desire for the answers to bigger questions than "Where am I gonna eat lunch today?"

Stephen Hawking's life and his research in cosmology are fascinating and based on that alone I enjoyed this book. However, the book is poorly written and lacks depth. It lacks any detailed description of Stephen Hawking's work and doesn't provide any true insight into his life or character. For example, the authors repeatedly inform us of what an overpowering presence Stephen Hawking has but they never provide any evidence of this. Good writers show you what they mean - they don't just repeatedly tell you.

This book seems to based on no actual contact with Stephen or Jane Hawking or any of his colleagues. It seems that the authors read "A Brief History of Time," read a couple of articles, and then decided to write a biography. It definitely comes up short.

I am an enormous fan of Stephen Hawking, his achievements in physics are incredible and his ability to overcome his illness demonstrates how sturdy the human mind can be. He is touted in the book as the greatest mind since Einstein, which is a claim I also recently read concerning Richard Feynman. I have no opinion on this, as I hold them both in very high regard. To me such debates are silly, as ranking such people is so subjective that it is meaningless and wasteful.
That aside, I generally enjoyed the book, finding the explanations of the physics a little too simplistic for my tastes, but certainly within the realm of the general reader. My only real criticism is that there was too much ink spent on some of the minutiae of his life. Even Hawking probably objects to some of the details about his life that appear. However, I was pleased to read that he can be temperamental and shows his anger by running over a person's foot with his wheelchair. It just makes him sound that much more human.
This is a good biography of a great man, who lets nothing get in his way. An inspiration who probably does not want the role in any capacity other than as a physicist, he has revolutionized cosmology and it will be a minimum of decades before all the consequences of his work will be known.

Well, this book is about the biography of one of the genius of our time. But unfortunately, is not the biography that one waited. It was possibly written with the purpose of making money: because I think that what is written on Stephen, is sold at once. The book dedicates a chapter to explain the scientific developments, and the following one dedicates it to speak of Stephen, and so forth until the end. Finished the book, one doesn't know if it was bought a divulgation book or a biography. As divulgation book it is too limited, and how biography, it leaves to a side the spiritual content of a man born for the science. In total, an incomplete book. If you feel passion for the science, as me, you won't like this book.

But not everything is bad. If you are not informed of anything of the development of the science of this century, at least until some years ago, this is a good book for you, because on it you will find a small biography of one of the biggest scientific personalities in the XX century, and at the same time you will be able to find out topics so dark as those of the general relativity, singularities, black holes and something of quantum mechanics, in a simple, and easy language. You are the only one that, in definitive, knows as being located in front of the book.

It is incredible how they trust blindly in EVERY aspect of General Relativity. Space-time warpages and singularities happens ONLY in mathematics! There is no way out. It is funny how Scientific American gives credibility to such a kind of science-fiction. It is time to stop lying to the public!

Hawking and Thorne, grasp it: Time-travel is physically IMPOSSIBLE.

Time travel appears pretty impractical based on this book. Maybe it's mathematically possible to fold time and punch wormholes in it in theory, but I don't think NASA or Greyhound is going to be offering trips back and forth through our lives. However, it's always intriguing to read what really smart people come up with, because they make a lot of it seem so obvious, even though I could never come up with it on my own.

I'm usually wary of books that are collections of essays, especially essays by several different people. Like many such books, The Future of Spacetime is something of a hodgepodge. Still, when I saw that the authors included Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Timothy Ferris, Alan Lightman and Igor Novikov, it seemed to be worth taking a look. That decision was very well rewarded.

The five essays in The Future of Spacetime were first presented as talks for a celebration of the 60th birthday of Kip Thorne, a leading theoretical physicist. Three of them, plus a brief introduction by physicist Richard Price, deal with relativity, and especially with the possibility and implications of "closed timelike curves" in spacetime--time travel for short. In addition, Tim Ferris writes insightfully about why it is so important for scientists and science writers to do a better job of informing people about scientific theories and discoveries, but even more importantly clueing them in about how science works. He points out that it may take 1,000 years for a concept to penetrate to the core of society. Since modern science is at best 500 years old, there's lots left to be accomplished. Alan Lightman, who is both a physicist and a novelist, beautifully describes the creative process that lies at the heart of both science and creative writing. Scientists and novelists, he argues, are simply seeking different kinds of truths.

The three physics essays are gems. Each sheds at least some light on the nature of spacetime, on the possibility (or impossibility, or improbability) of time machines and time travel, and on intimately related issues such as causality and free will. Novikov, for example, concludes that the future can influence the past, but not in such a way as to erase or change an event that has already happened. Hawking argues that time travel is happening all the time at the quantum level, but that nature would protect against an attempt to use a time machine to send a macroscopic object, such as a human being, back in time. I was particularly impressed by Kip Thorne's essay, in which he makes a series of predictions concerning what physicists and cosmologists will discover in the next thirty years. He explains the importance of the gravity-wave detectors that are now starting to come on line. They promise to let us read the gravitational signals of such primordal events as the collision of black holes and even the big bang itself. It is as fascinating to get to piggyback on how these great minds think as it is to read their conclusions.

In short, The Future of Spacetime is a bit of a salad, but an extremely delicious and satisfying one.

Robert E. Adler, author of Science Firsts: From the Creation of Science to the Science of Creation (Wiley & Sons, 2002).

After having read "A Brief History of Time", "Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays", "The Cambridge Lectures" and "The Universe In a Nutshell" by the esteemed Professor Hawking, as well as Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe", I figured this book would be yet another great educational read!

It appears that my initial logic was somewhat flawed.

While the book states at it's outset that it requires an understanding of physics, I believe that it requires either the equivalent mind-power of a Einstein with the cocaine-induced flashes of Freud, or the equivalent computing power of everything Seymour Cray ever built...after several upgrades!

After (during?!) the first chapter, I simply couldn't keep my thoughts from blurring into obscure thoughts of the fact that GM is killing the Camaro after 35 successful years...the price of inkjet printer supplies... Bill...Gates keeps getting away with it...and essentially ANY OTHER TOPIC than that which I was "attempting" to read at the time!

While one of the girls at the coffee shop (I get wired on caffeine, and I read...) who, I must admit, was absolutely, captivatingly exotic, and her mere presence drew my eye more often that I care to admit, using her as an excuse for my distraction would really only be secondary at best.

The fact remains that the book simply isn't written for laymen; it's for scientists...and not just "good" scientists either, but the "truly rare" breed...unfortunately, that breed does not appear to include me. Sure, I can get into Mensa...but this book was almost completely beyond me! (I GOT THE INDEX!!!)

I'd very highly reccommend any or ALL (obviously my choice) of the books I've noted above for anyone with an interest, but as for this one...if you're not working for a PHD, Masters, or at least a Bachelor's degree, save your money, because this'll only make you tear your hair out...for many, it's probably falling quickly enough on its own already.

Not me, of course, as I'm just so pretty my face decided to annex surrounding territory for expansion purposes.

Well...theoretics are theoretics, right?

This was an early attempt to capitalize on Hawking's commercial success with the Brief History. Roger Penrose, Hawking's PhD advisor, has also written some really fascinating books for lay readers on philosophical implications of physics such as on the nature of intelligence. However, combining the two in a debate, the form of this book, cancels out the reader-friendly accessibility of their solo works as their egos take charge and they try to outperform each other. It makes sense after the fact that if they're debating, they must be discussing matters on which they disagree, and since physics is so well settled and understood on all but the most esoteric and advanced questions, the subject matter of their disagreements must lie in that advanced realm. Of course, "advanced" is a vastly relative term to apply to physics, since many ordinary readers would balk at any physics material. But I have a degree in physics, albeit only a BS - and after the initial material I have to struggle to follow anything they're saying! They should stamp this book's cover with a caveat emptor; this is no "Brief History of Time" or "Elegant Universe." They even mention at the outset that they assume the reader has a basic understanding of physics, but these guys' idea of a basic understanding is a Ph.D. specializing in general relativity. Having said all that, the book still makes for heady reading from what I could pick up here and there, so it's a thrill if you're up to it.

In spite of the errors mentioned in another review the discussion was fairly interesting but not as great a "debate" as I anticipated. I'd spend my money on Penrose's "The Emporer's New Mind" before this one. For those interested in Black Holes, Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps ..." is exceptionally well written and rewarding for the reader. For the technically [mathematically] apt who wants an fascinating treatice on spacetime, try John Wheeler and Ignazio Ciufolini's book on Geometrodynamics (Princeton Univ. Press).

The author presents confused arguments
against several of the core tenets of
modern physics and cosmology.
In particular, he argues that Einstein's
theory of relativity (which, for some reason,
he attributes largely to Hawking) does not
stand up to the test of "commonsense".

He appears to be unaware that the theory was
proposed in response to the complete failure
of "commonsense" to explain or accommodate
various observed physical phenomena, such as
the results of the 1880 and 1887 Michelson-Morley
experiments.

Since then, the commonsense Newtonian theory has
been flatly and repeatedly contradicted by our
observations of the real world, whereas Einstein's
theory has withstood thousands of stringent
experimental tests and has also been a central
ingredient in the development of much modern
technology. This does not yet prove that the
theory is correct, but it's an impressive record;
and it makes little sense now to argue against
relativity simply on the grounds that it defies
commonsense.

Apart from being apparently unaware of the enormous
body of supporting experimental evidence, the author
clearly has no grasp at all of the mathematical
basis of relativity (which is central to its
understanding). Instead, he has seized upon various
quotes from popular books - as though these quotes
themselves constituted the theory - and proceeded
to interpret and lampoon them in his own
idiosyncratic manner.

Skepticism is a normal and healthy reaction to
theories as counter-intuitive as relativity;
indeed, informed and thoughtful skepticism are
invaluable to the on-going development of science
and make for very interesting reading.
Unfortunately, the criticisms offered in this book
cannot be described as either well-informed or
thoughtful. The author freely acknowledges his lack
of expertise, but apparently regards this a virtue.

This is the most unilluminating and uninformative
book on modern physics I have seen. I dread to think
what the author might come up with if he hears about
quantum mechanics!

This book is unfortunately worthless. Not because its viewpoint contradicts scientific knowledge of the day, but because its reasoning is so shaky and flawed. Technobabble: that is all you need as summary.

Although getting a book published is an admirable feat for the average Joe, I must say that such is the only thing admirable about this author's endeavor.

Without really any scientific or mathematical backing, the author talks circles around some of the most groundbreaking work in the area of physics in modern times. Rather than dispute such work with logic, however, this author uses doublespeak and "common-sense" analogies to dissuade the reader from believing what the greatest minds on the planet have asserted using mathematics, physics, logic, and the scientific process... to dissuade the reader, often, from believing much-proven fact.

Whatever the motivation, this author's irresponsible work makes for an interesting read if one wishes to see what not to do when making an argument.

If one is looking for an intelligent, persuasive, or piqueing new look at theories often taken for granted, one shuold definately look elsewhere.