The brief history of time

[minthaka]

Have somebody red Stephen W. Hawking's book: The brief history of time, from Big Bang to...?
- How did you like it?
For me personally it was very interesting reading, but I also have been disappointed by the modern science. So many humbugs taken so seriously...So many contradictions enabled or cloaked.
Still it's a nice piece of book. And Mr. Hawking is a real brain.

[aliov]

I read this book, but i didn't like it at all , there is no proof in it, so for such theories or propositions given by the author there is no proof , and for me i can't believe in something without proof !

These kind of books aren't understandable by me, i mean this is a Science book and not a stories at the least the base information or demonstration wish lead the author to have these conclusions .

and also another reason why i didn't like it ,because i don't like physics, because simply there is a lack of definitions . (for example what is the definition of "mass" or even "physics") .

for me physicians start making "theories" without having a strong infrastructure .

Regards

[Vergil83]

I read it a long time ago but I don't remember much about it. I think it fulfilled its goal, a intro level book about cosmology.

Allov: Unfortunately modern physics is at a state where to really understand the evidence you need some much knowledge/expertise, it is beyond the reach of us normal people. So they have to use analogies, thought experiments, etc to explain.

[Lakshmipathi]

Yes. I read some parts of the book. I really like hawkings view...really great human brain and i love to read about universe and other stuff...we have to admire him for his work

[fingal]

I read enough of the book to realise that I'll never understand most of it. What I did gain from it is a sense that space/time are more flexible concepts than I knew ... Our perception of time is deeply flawed because of the small scale/context of our lives.

The discussion about evidence is interesting. Our world is obsessed with 'evidence' while failing to acknowledge how selective people are in choosing it! People often choose available 'evidence' to match their personal prejudices ... The truth might be self evident, but 'evidence' suggests otherwise.

Perhaps it's putting the cart before the horse to think that people like S. Hawking look for evidence before they make an intuitive leap towards a particular idea. Often the idea for a theory comes first ... the search for 'evidence' follows this.

Hawking is remarkable. As a young man doctors gave him months to live following diagnosis of his illness. He's still here amazing us with his ideas: good job he ignored the evidence.

[ryokimball]

Unfortunately modern physics is at a state where to really understand the evidence you need some much knowledge/expertise, it is beyond the reach of us normal people

Ack...
Believe it or not (I'm "young," so you don't have to believe me), but the people that came up with some of the key points in things like quantum physics really were early applied to advanced sciences. They took a matter of uncertainty (see Schrodinger's cat) and turned it into something... well, like something out of the sixties. Primaily, the part that frustrates me in quantum physics is that they clame that subatomic molecules are "both there and not there." The simple fact of the matter is that the molecules are so small that particles of light have enough energy to knock them out of the way very easily --therefore you cannot observe the position or even the properties of such a molecule due to its minute size (think of playing pool, where the que ball is light and the other balls are the particles --once struck, they will not be in the same position to be struck again). However, the quantum physicists don't want to say that they are simply moving --they are saying that they are both where the ball was hit and somewhere else, or even not in existance. Some chum even got a government grant to find a way to harness energy from quantum particles synthesized in a vacuum (here is an example on their side of the story); the idea is that particles are instantaniously created and destroyed all the time, everywhere, and that they can capture them to make energy. I won't comment further because I think it would then become ranting.

Otherwise, I haven't read the book, but I did see the movie. Hawking is a very awesome person, even without analyzing his works

[Oxygen]

I haven't read it, but would probably like to, I'm very interested in theories of the universe.