A Brief History of Time - 1988
A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes is a popular-science book on cosmology (the study of the universe) by British physicist Stephen Hawking. It was first published in 1988. Hawking wrote the book for nonspecialist readers with no prior knowledge of scientific theories.
In A Brief History of Time, Hawking writes in non-technical terms about the structure, origin, development and eventual fate of the universe, which is the object of study of astronomy and modern physics. He talks about basic concepts like space and time, basic building blocks that make up the universe (such as quarks) and the fundamental forces that govern it (such as gravity). He writes about cosmological phenomena such as the Big Bang and black holes. He discusses two major theories, general relativity and quantum mechanics, that modern scientists use to describe the universe. Finally, he talks about the search for a unifying theory that describes everything in the universe in a coherent manner.
My overriding impression is how very insignificant we are in a scope so vast and so complex that it is beyond our comprehension. Like a Global Earth map system that zooms in on smaller and more precise locations, our tiny bubble of existence is of little import to the big picture, yet it occupies every minute of our time and relationships. And while we struggle with groceries or which team will win a trophy, there are scientists and mathematicians who focus on the mysteries of our universe. Computers and electronics and lenses have speeded up the search, but it still boils down to the minds of those who have formulated theories, only to tweak and replace them in search of how the universe began and how/if it will end. I see the tie to our previous readings, in which the questions revolved around WHY it exists. We can’t conceive of infinity in any direction. If God created the world, who created Him?
ReplyDeleteThe casual reader can’t be expected to follow scientific terminology. The explanations of the evolving theories seem circular with repeated words detracting from understanding. For example “The force-carrying PARTICLES exchanged between matter PARTICLES are said to be virtual PARTICLES because, unlike real PARTICLES..”
The movement of science has been astoundingly fast from relativity to quantum gravity/ mechanics to string theory. When Dad was in school studying chemistry and physics, these concepts didn’t exist. I am glad we took on the challenge of this book because there is value in just skimming its surface. It is a needed mind exercise and a wish to know more.
If the universe is expanding, in what direction? And if all directions, then what is its center?
If starlight is deflected, with stars appearing to be in different positions, how do we identify them?
If the quantum theory of gravity says it’s possible for space-time to be finite, yet have no boundary, so that when traveling in a certain direction, you come back to where you started, then what is outside the circle?
And of course, what is the role of a Creator?
I can’t get past boundaries, which begs the question of what is on the other side?
Wormholes and time travel and string theory were far beyond me. Stuff of sci-fi. I’m reminded of Sophie and the question of what is real. It is very arrogant to think we are the end game, when we read of the improbable yet absolutely perfect chain of events over millennia that brought us here.
My reaction to this book varied. I do see your thoughts on the sense of scale that universal physics instills in you. At the same time, quantum mechanics breaks things down in the opposite way so it should make us and our day to day activates seems massive as we are a universe to smaller particles.
DeleteI have seen reviews of this book as well as shelf-talkers describe it as an introductory lecture on the concept of universal time, quantum mechanics, and the nature of space. It is all those things and more but wrapped up in a pleasingly, primary pedagogical shell. There is no way to present concepts of such complexity in a simpler manner. Given the nature and scale of the questions and theories put forth, the book gets high marks for clarity and organization. Hawking admits several times throughout the book that much, if not all ,of what is being discussed, at least as it has evolved to our present understanding, is theoretical only as the math does not exist nor does the actual science to observe/prove the theories. That is the point that stuck with me and the frequency with which it could be applied colored my impression of the concept, not the work itself.
ReplyDeleteAs I stated in my first comment, I had a different and perhaps confused feeling after finishing the book. I can see how it gave you the micro-sense of being as the picture is painted as systems within systems, the biggest or smallest of which is not yet known. The macro-sense of being also takes effect when the concepts of quantum mechanics are explained. The big takeaway is that there is no real qualified to describe how small a thing needs to be changed in order to have massive repercussions across a vast scale. Since the very concept of time is called into questions as well as the direction in which it is moving vs our perception of its passing, it is pretty easy to get disoriented. Per my earlier point on the theoretical nature of the science being described, I don’t come away from the book with a lot of belief in either the material put forth of the theories described. I can appreciate how confident scientists can be in their ideas. The scientific method allows for those ideas to be challenged and changed sure but given the admission that the math and actual observation of the theories being described I feel like Hawking and his peers are hardly a step above a group of children lying on a field of summer grass (not in VA heat of course) looking up at the shape of clouds in the sky and composing aloud a fairy tale together. It is easy to say what is happening when that is all you have to do. Of course there is science and math used in the pass to establish a base of knowledge off of which theoretical science like a grand unified theory can jump but I got the feeling from the book there was a lot of people saying, “Trust us, we are smart. We know what we are doing.” The reversals in theory even as demonstrated and admirably admitted by Hawking himself, is common place. I understand it is the test and revise part of the scientific method but the way these ideas are presented, at least to me, is of absolute truths until the people telling us they are absolute change their mind and say something else. Perhaps that is the goal of this book; it aims to provide a basis of knowledge to the great public to get us involved, to prompt questions. I believe the motivation of Hawking in writing a book and making such complex theory accessible in plain English stems from the point that he himself highlights in the end. Science and its impact on our race/planet/future are only relevant if it is taken out of the lab and presented to the people. To do that, it needs to be adapted to a level of accessibility that makes it able to be disseminated to a larger population. As science has become more focused, much like medicine, it has become more inward looking and perhaps lost its roots in the civilizations that spawned it. Hawking says understanding and support for science can only come when that science is not kept under lock and key. Much like a church acting as the voice of God, scientists keep all but the results to themselves. This breeds suspicion, apathy, and ignorance. As he says, “However, if we do discover a complete theory, should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.”
ReplyDeleteHawking admits that this science, however grand, has little impact on the conduct of the great part of human history and perhaps the future given the scope of time. ''The discovery of a complete unified theory . . . may not aid the survival of our species. 'It may not even affect our life-style. But ever since the dawn of civilization, people have not been content to see events as unconnected and inexplicable. . . . Humanity's deepest desire for knowledge is justification enough for our continuing quest. And our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in.'' I might not agree that knowledge for knowledge’s sake is an overriding justification or justification of our position on our planet, in our galaxy, or in the universe. Hawking also admits to the speculative nature of the whole thing. Multiple times he admits that scientists just don’t know the truth of the theories and science he describes as we are not able to yet do anything other than hypothesize. Such thinking might be a start to that understanding and proof or perhaps maybe it is just an idle pursuit such as philosophy. It is in our nature as we have developed as a species to ask questions about the when’s, why’s, how’s, why’s on a personal and on a grand scale. Is this type of thinking a reaction to the mundane nature of survival? We are wrapped safely in technology and dominance over our immediate environment but we are barely one step removed from the struggle for pure survival. In some parts of the world this is more evident than others. Asking the questions Hawking is attempting to answer might help unlock a better understand and unifying theory for the human race just as it might help us to venture into space. I feel it is more a reaction to the inherent helplessness we have as a species. The need for faith and belief in something, be it God or the Big Bang, is a form of escapism and empowerment designed to distance ourselves from our nature. A desire to assert control over the uncontrollable. If the book did anything, it was to point out how little control we actually have. It goes back to the beginning of this poster project and highlights the battle between society and nature, civilization and wilderness that we saw in Lord of the Flies.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it comes down to my biggest gripe, not with the book itself, but rather with the concepts of purports. All of the content, the science, the language, the purpose, the humanity…all of it is a creation of humans. Language, concepts, math, are all creations to help us better understand ourselves and our surroundings. No longer are we grunting like cavepeople but have invented math to count the number of primordial black holes. By the nature of being created concepts to better describe a situation from a limited species-oriented point of view, isn’t the concept already biased beyond being impartial and definitive scientific description? The universe and all we understand it to be, our desire to bend it to the laws and rules of our own creation just for peace of mind? The very unusable math and unprovable theories Hawking lays out drive this home for me. We have no other explanation so the one we invent is the absolute truth about the vastness of a concept we can’t understand. It is relative of course so using what we can understand is the only way to frame it but universal behavior, function, and history seems to easily surpass our ability and it is arrogant to think that our made up math is the way to go about it. Such a small part of an observable whole. It doesn’t even take in to account the parts that we can’t observe. Despite Hawking’s attempts and enjoyable writing style, it comes off as arrogant to me.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of writing style, the best parts of the book come from when Hawking drops the pedantic teaching, however accessible and displays his real mind. When he writes with his playful sense of humor and relates the greater concepts to his inner motivations, theoretical mistakes, and scientific prejudices, it makes the science more real than any solved formula could. It ceases to be pure science and becomes human achievement. The moments are special as they are used sparingly but I did hope for more of his personality to come through. It is personality that helps makes Neil deGrasse Tyson so approachable and a perfect ambassador for complex science.
I am glad we read this book and it was definitely new material for me so I was excited to learn more about the words I have only heard in science fiction or as buzzwords in the media. It prompts lots of further thoughts, is written well, and is not overwhelming. I can see why it is on the poster and how it fits the connection between the titles we have read so far.