Read The Grand Design book reviews & author details and more at wm-greece.info In this startling and lavishly illustrated book, Stephen Hawking and Leonard. Read The Grand Design book reviews & author details and more at wm-greece.info Black Holes And Baby Universes And Other Essays by Stephen Hawking. Read The Grand Design book reviews & author details and more at wm-greece.info Stephen Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University.
|Language:||English, Spanish, German|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
The Grand Design is a popular-science book written by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and published by Bantam Books in The book. Is the apparent 'grand design' of our universe evidence for a benevolent creator who The Grand Design is a book that will inform - and provoke - like no other. In this startling and lavishly illustrated book, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow present the most recent scientific thinking about these and other abiding.
I dunno It was all so very glossed over, overwhelmed by all the history and background needed to give the reader an appropriate framework. Then when they finally game to the climax of the story, where all the previous information should coalesce, M-theory barely got much of an explanation or treatment at all.
I got the impression they wanted to push this Grand Idea, a wrap-up of all previous ideas, made with sweeping statements and generalizations to get press. Plus, if it turns out to work and be right, they can point to this very thin book and say "A-ha! Now, if you are looking to learn more about the science of the universe this is just the book for you. They do an excellent job explaining aspects of special relativity, general relativity, particle physics, early-universe physics, even my favorite field, the CMB.
Which maddeningly they call the CMBR, a very outdated term, and refer to the fluctuations as being in the microwave regime, even though they are sub-millimeter radiation! They even throw in a ton of historical context, which helps the reader understand the difficulties of the field and the constantly evolving nature of science. The science is great, you will learn a ton. The writing is clear in that no-nonsense style Hawking is so famous for.
Unfortunately in a few areas the explanations get really muddled to the point of incomprehensibility, and I suspect that might be Mlodinow's doing, since those muddled spots fall in his particular area of expertise. One would expect a research scientist in the field even if she's a lowly experimentalist should be able to breeze through all their scientific lessons. I found the string theory section to be really tough-going, with pretty poorly thought out examples.
But it is a very esoteric field, and maybe there just aren't easy ways to help lay-folks visualize the dimensional space and the vibrating membranes? Speaking of clear teaching examples, the book is filled with ways to help the reader visualize some very hard concepts.
Gravity affects space-time like having a rubber sheet for your pool table, then pulling down on one spot right in the middle. The balls will curve around the area in much the same way that objects do near-ish black holes.
The "strings" in string theory are described to be like a straw, with a surface space, but curled up on itself. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science.
Though realism may be a tempting viewpoint, what we know about modern physics makes it a difficult one to defend. For example, according to the principles of quantum physics, which is an accurate description of nature, a particle has neither a definite position nor a definite velocity unless and until those quantities are measured by an observer.
In fact, in some cases individual objects don't even have an independent existence but rather exist only as part of an ensemble of many. See pictures of the Large Hadron Particle Collider. Electrons are a useful model that explains observations like tracks in a cloud chamber and the spots of light on a television tube. Quarks, which we also cannot see, are a model to explain the properties of the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom. Though protons and neutrons are said to be made of quarks, we will never observe a quark because the binding force between quarks increases with separation, and hence isolated, free quarks cannot exist in nature.
Model-dependent realism can provide a framework to discuss questions such as: If the world was created a finite time ago, what happened before that? Some people support a model in which time goes back even further than the big bang.
It is not yet clear whether a model in which time continued back beyond the big bang would be better at explaining present observations because it seems the laws of the evolution of the universe may break down at the big bang. If they do, it would make no sense to create a model that encompasses time before the big bang, because what existed then would have no observable consequences for the present, and so we might as well stick with the idea that the big bang was the creation of the world.
A model is a good model if it: 1. According to that world-view God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
So as per Christian belief-system, and not only as per Christian belief-system, but as per other belief-systems also, God is everywhere. So when these scientists are saying that the void is a real void, God is already dead and non-existent for them. But these scientists know very well that non-existence of God will not be finally established until and unless it is shown that the origin of the universe can also be explained without invoking God.
Creation event is the ultimate event where God will have to be made redundant, and if that can be done successfully then that will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God does not exist. So how have they accomplished that job, the job of making God redundant in case of creation event?
These were the steps: 1 God is non-existent, and so, the void is a real void. Without the pre-supposition that God does not exist, it cannot be concluded that the void is a real void.
Our universe has actually originated from the void due to a quantum fluctuation in it.
So here what is to be proved has been proved based on the assumption that it has already been proved. Philosophy is already dead for these scientists.
Is it that logic is also dead for them? Sanjeev Kumar January 2, at am People seem to be taken in by the high sounding theories and philosophies that Hawking has written in the book. Everyone seem to be pretending to understand what they don;t understand so as to hide their ignorance. Tons of arguments can be put forward to undermine his philosophy cum theory at various levels.
Who created the laws of gravity in the first place? Can a system of gravity and quantum mechanics create itself out of the blue and suddenly give rise to the universe? How could an unconcious empty vacuum suddenly decided to frame the extremely complex and elegant laws of physics in order to create the universe?
Why should we use the bandwagon of counterintuitive thoughts to say that this is all possible?