Customer Reviews

The Hole in the Universe: How Scientists Peered over the Edge of Emptiness and Found Everything

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This is a book about "nothing" inspired by recent discoveries in physics, similar to the one written by Brit physicist John D. Barrow, The Book of Nothing: Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas about the Origins of the Universe (2000). While Barrow devoted several chapters to the history of the concept of zero and the idea of nothing, Cole, while covering much of the same territory, emphasizes recent discoveries about the vacuum and ideas from string and loop theory while her extensive use of quotations gives her book a more journalist feel. Otherwise the books are strikingly similar, even to the typographic use of subheads in capital letters followed by epigram-like quotes from various authors that break up the text. It's almost as if the same person did the layout for both books! Both authors sometimes even use the same examples, e.g., John Cage's "musical composition" entitled, 4' 33" (four minutes and 33 seconds of pure silence). Noteworthy in Cole's book is the interesting material on silence beginning on page 211 and then some examples from the psychology of perception on pages 214-231 with an excursion into the concept of nothing from Zen Buddhism.

Cole is a science journalist who writes for the Los Angeles Times and is the author of The Universe and the Teacup: The Mathematics of Truth and Beauty (1998) and First You Build a Cloud: And Other Reflections on Physics as a Way of Life (1999). I enjoyed both books and reviewed the latter favorably for Amazon.com readers, and so it was with pleasant anticipation the I began reading The Hole in the Universe, hoping that I would learn more about the bizarre properties of the vacuum than I was to glean from Barrow's excellent book. What I learned was just how difficult the subject really is, and how far removed it is from our common sense notions about the world.

I would rate this book higher but sometimes Cole's ready metaphors and analogies run into each other, further obscuring an already dusky subject matter, and there are some slips. She writes on page 251, "It's easy to imagine ten dimensions of space because you can just add one on top of the other." (Not for me, at any rate, it isn't.) And there's a bad take on the anthropic principle on page 242. Cole writes. "...in a sense, our very perception determines the kind of universe we populate." It's really the other way around: we are created from the stuff of the universe and that stuff determines our perception. It's not even clear that "We perceive the only universe we can perceive" (also from page 242), because the universe could be a little different and we could still perceive it. Finally, Cole, in discussing the Higgs field, uses the simile, "the Higgs field to our universe is like water to a fish--the same everywhere and therefore utterly imperceptible." We can imagine that the fish "perceives" the water when it touches the sand at the bottom and when it leaps above the surface.

These quibbles aside, this is an exciting and stimulating book. Let me share some impressions:

First, it is apparent that there is no such thing as nothing, or I should say, nothing is something!

Second, the idea that time and space began with the big bang and that there was nothing as a matter of definition beyond the big bang can be discarded. It now seems more likely that our universe is just one of a possible infinity of universes, popping probabilistically out of the vacuum that used to be nothing but is now a bubbling caldron of potential energy.

Third, my favorite question, Why is there something rather than nothing? has an easy answer: There is something rather than nothing because there is no such thing as nothing.

Fourth, the world of string theory with its eleven dimensions and it ultra tiny strings at the scale of 10 to the minus 33 centimeters, is entirely of the stuff we will never perceive or have any ability to comprehend beyond the report of the equations.

Fifth, the old bugaboo about the universe having no beginning or being created from nothing is no longer such a quandary because, One, nothing is something; and Two, nothing has always been here. In other words, the question is answered: the universe (or mega-universe or super-universe, or whatever) had no beginning and is eternal. (God, the creator, is not going to like this, but I'm sure something can be worked out.)

Sixth, perhaps, as Cole suggests in the final chapter, a good definition of "nothing" is perfect symmetry.

Finally, I came away from reading this book with the clear sense that the universe exists indefinitely in every direction from the macro to the micro, from the distant past to the distance future. In other words, we exist not as on a darkling plain as the poet Matthew Arnold had it, but in a bubble of space and time smack in the middle of a possible infinity of bubbles, our ability to see in any one "direction" limited by our senses and our instruments, but enhanced by our ability to reason and extrapolate from evidence, but ultimately stopped cold by our imaginations and the realization of how really tiny is our arena of discernment compared to the incredible vastness gaping away from us in any and all directions. If this realization doesn't make us humble and awestruck, I don't know what will.

Incidentally, both Cole and Barrow, while carousing merrily about all sorts of whimsical notions of nothing, failed to acknowledge the "god of nothing," that is, the ineffable god of the Vedas about whom nothing can be said: "Neti, neti, neti"--not this, not this, and not this!

I read Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe before The Hole in the Universe. No doubt, the scientific depth of Greene's near-masterpiece bolstered my negative reaction to Cole's rather light-weight book. A serious science reader should avoid "Hole": it is superficial, contains a bizarre digression, and is too clever for its own good. One could argue that Hole's relatively short length is a benefit. Undoubtedly, some short science books are very good. (Short works by Martin Rees, John Barrow, and Paul Davies demonstrate this point.) Hole's short length, however, is not evidence of the author having synthesized mind-bending and mathematically challenging material into clear, tight prose. Hole is so short because it's so superficial. In fact, I would argue that the book is too long. The bizarre digression I mentioned above occurs at the end of the book where Cole discusses how the human brain perceives (or misperceives) the world. The connection to her main subject -- "nothing" -- is tenuous, at best. The only plausible explanation I can come up with for Cole's wierd digression is that it allowed her to briefly discuss two books she likes (one of which -- Phantoms in the Brain -- I have read and was shocked to find mentioned in Hole). Finally, I was extremely annoyed by the clever word play and frequent interruptions in Hole. The word play got old very quickly. Nothing, something, and anything -- yes, these words can create cute sentences when the subject is nothing, but not past the first chapter. Thankfully, the word play decreased after the third or fourth chapter, but my irritation with the author never left me. As for the interruptions, I dislike headers and quotes every 2.5 pages of a book. It gave Hole the feel of a very long Newsweek article. If I could, I would put a sticker on the jacket advertising Hole as a MTV Book Club selection, "catering to short attention spans." Hole isn't useless, but I didn't find it particularly enlightening. Several contemporary physicists have written popular science books that cover the topic of nothing more deeply and more satisfyingly.

I may not be the right person to review a book like this because I am already familiar with most of the subjects that are addressed here through better popularizations by Greene, Guth, Ganz, Thorne and others. This book is "accessible" as the book jacket promises, but in order to make it easy on its targeted audience the information is so diluted that at the end I was not sure that there was anything new that had not been said elsewhere, nor is it expressed in a way that is particularly original or imaginative. It reads like a long newspaper article - lots of adjectives, lots of enthusiasm, lots of questions, but very little to say. If you are looking for information about string theory, the big bang, the importance of the vacumn, dark matter and energy, etc. this is not the place to start, nor is it a place to pick up any new analogies or metaphors that will help you on your way. This is unfortunate because I believe the author has bravely chosen a subject that desperately needs good interpreters. The problem is that nearly every subject she tackles is very, very difficult. There may be no simple way to explain any of it because so many of these ideas are in rapid development. So little is understood, much less agreed upon, by the very people that originated the ideas discussed in this book. The author must depend on other popularizations for her own understanding. So while the book is sincere and enthusiastic, this reader had no confidence that the author knew what she was talking about.

I was left with one strong impression. Science journalists should not try to explain or simplify the ideas. Leave that to scientists in the field and their editors. (There are notorious counter examples to disprove that rule !) Journalists who are non- scientists often more successful when commenting on the personalities and the social conditions in which the ideas are generated. Many years will pass before we get a good book that might begin to "explain" string theory to the layman, and my guess is that this will be done by an active researcher. But I would bet there are a fascinating stories now in plain view as to the political environment which decides at any moment what the "correct" interpretations of any theory are at any time. This is also useful work.

I was hoping for a layman's review of the latest findings in cosmology. Instead I got a completely disorganized mish mash of random quotes from scientists (seemed to be the author's attempt to curry favor with those she may need for future articles) and endless puns on the word "nothing". Unlike the Universe, her book has no discernable structure, and NO attempt to clearly explain any of the new concepts (string theory, anti-matter etc.).

Physics -- in particular quantum physics and Einstein's theories -- has always fascinated me. And, though I've admittedly not read many physics books (I was a biology major), most of them lose me in the math early on, and I am quickly frustrated with them. That is, it's often hard for me to see the big picture and conceptually understand what the author is talking about. Perhaps I am dense (aka stupid) but my desire to understand physics has always been there. This book was written for people like me...

KC Cole amazingly pulls together the current theories in cosmology, string theory, etc., into one coherent statement that is an amazing, stirring read. She doesn't write like a physicist but rather speaks in layman's terms. As a non-physicist, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and plan further readings of "real" physics books now that I have a bigger picture to start from.

If you already understand much in physics, this book admittedly isn't for you. But, if you love science, but have never quite been able to get a foothold in the world of quantum states and quarks, this is a great place to start. The ideas, eloquently expressed, will leave you in awe.

I posted a previous review...so it might appear "unfair." to comment a second time. But I hope to bear my prejudices more openly for criticism.

Immediately after reading Cole's book I was able to read another popular science book that was excellent, although on a somewhat different subject. In the second book I felt that the author had made every effort to reveal the exact pathway of his thinking, original thinking, step by step, in a way that made you feel as though you were right with him on the subject. You were free to accept or reject his ideas on their own merits. You weren't just left with the feeling that you just had to believe her because everything was just so gosh darn exciting!

There were no short cuts in the second book. The argument was obviously honed over years of the give and take found in teaching and public presentation, counter arguments presented with their full integrity, the information built up in a logical and memorable manner. And there was no doubt that the author knew what he was talking about because he was able to discuss the essence of the experiments and the data in just the right amount of detail. Whenever he indulged in speculation, he knew it, and he openly admitted it. As a reader you knew exactly where you stood with respect to the author and his ideas. These kind of books only come along once or twice a year, in a very good year, and they are hard to write.

By comparison Cole's book reads like a gossip column. This is Quantum Mechanics by Dear Abby. Every subject begins with something quoted form another book, second or third hand to give the illusion of credibility, conversations or fragments of conversations only partly understood. All that she is left to do is breathlessly amplify or wholly exagerate what she doesn't already understand. And then she asks more questions that nobody can answer. There is a lot of excitement and enthusiasm, but no thinking involved. By comparison a book like the "Dancing Wu Li Masters" or "Tao of Physics" would actually seem hard core.

I think you are actually worse off with a book like this because you suddenly become enlightened and conversant in an exciting but imaginary world of hype, rumor, and speculation. I guess there is always a market for this even in the sciences.

If it seems that I am being harsh it is only because there are some really good books out there that are better worth your while. We are now experiencing a tremendous surge in the quality of science writing not only because the science is interesting, but because, like all good writing, somebody has written honestly about something they have taken the considerable effort to think about. Cole may be a good observer and her instincts are sound, but she does not have the tools or the training to handle the original sources. This is the wrong type of book for her to write.

Despite its grandiose title, Cole's concise volume focuses less on "everything" (or a theory thereof) and more on historical and contemporary concepts of "nothing" and of "zero." In the first paragraph of her introduction, the author admits the difficulty of writing such a book and claims she avoids the temptations of "following [nothing] wherever it leads, getting lost in the semantic thicket of nothing puns, or simply bouncing the idea around on one's knee, string together curious facts and ancient history." In fact, this perplexing book succumbs to all three faults.

After an introductory, overlong, and (yes) pun-packed overview, Cole gets to the meat of the book. A history of zero and nothingness from the Greeks to the nineteenth century precedes a chapter on mathematical concepts, three chapters on physics (fields, quantum theory, spacetime, black holes, string theory), and two chapters on cosmology (big bang, inflation, the cosmological constant, repulsive force). The penultimate chapter, on how visual perception and psychological factors influence the concepts of nothingness, seems noticeably out of place.

Yet this outline of the book is deceptive, since the vaguely structured chapters seldom confine themselves to the topics at hand. A lack of transitions, a fondness for rhetorical questions, and an excess of tangents further confuse Cole's rambling banter. A symptom of the book's lack of organization is the unjustifiable frequency with which the author interjects that there will be "more on this topic later."

And then there are the puns. In spite of the author's preemptive reassurance to the contrary, there are so many quips along the lines of the one I've used to title this review that it's occasionally difficult to know how seriously a statement or observation is meant. Cole is quite capable of hitting her targets: there are a number of mind-expanding images, genuine bursts of witticism, and sharply described concepts, but, just as often, the discussion falters in linguistic limbo. Granted, Cole has an unenviable task, since even scientists haven't yet developed the language to discuss many of the concepts she describes, but her prose isn't aided by the preference for clever wordplay and winking asides over straightforward exposition and unambiguous definitions.

The book is not entirely without merit; one's reaction will surely depend on one's interests and background. Some readers, especially those who enjoy works of popular metaphysics, might regard the ideas presented here as mind-expanding, even satisfying, but fans of science writing are likely to be disappointed. Those readers should investigate instead the significant number of books listed in Cole's bibliography, most of which discuss these topics far more clearly.

This book will blow your mind. It is elegant, deep, crystal clear. A tour of nothingness that will turn you inside out: whether Cole is writing about the number zero, the perceptual aspects of seeing and feeling "nothing," the physics of the vacuum or the origin of time, you will feel right at home in this universe.

The Hole in the Universe is everything promised by those raves from Oliver Sacks and Brian Greene and Dava Sobel -- and much more! It is a deep look at an elusive, yet centrally important subject, presented with eloquence, originality and charm. It amazes me that Cole has been able to take us to the frontiers of physics, exploring questions that physicists sstill puzzle over, and yet still make it entirely accessible (and, yes, even fun) to a complete novice like myself. I have read about ideas like string theory and the strange "repulsive force" that seems to be expanding the universe, but never before were these ideas so clear and appealing to me. Her writing is so fresh and lovely, it takes your breath away. And I love the connections between the notion of "nothing" in perception -- the holes in our heads, as Cole calls them -- and the nothings of mathematics and physics. Buy this book and give it to all your friends. They will thank you.

I hope I do not offend anyone by posting "unfairly" a second time, but I have some information that might be useful for those who are more favorable towards Cole's book.

I have just been reading the "Book of Nothing" by John Barrow recently published in England by Cape press. I do not know when it will appear in America. The book covers essentially the same material - a bit too similar to be a coincidence, in my opinion. Although not perfect Barrow's book is, again in my opinion, far better written and editied, far better illustrated and stays the course on the most difficult and vital topics. It is a far more reliable guide, for example, on the subject of inflation and the meaning of such quantities as the density of vacume energy. Those who are particularly interested in "nothing" should consider moving on to Barrow's fairly soon.

I have also just finished another book on cosmology, an excellent book which I will not mention, but which offered me some insight into just what it was in particular that increases my distaste for Cole's book. This second book had the quality not only of being authorative, but which brought the reader, step by step, to share in the reasoning process of the writer. The great strength of modern science even in popular translation is that it engages the process of reasoning. This is particularly true when considering a subject like cosmology which is very weird and getting weirder. A science writer that disengages from the logical development of a scientific subject and relies on description, no matter how well intended, is only going to confuse the issues.

Cole's book will only confuse. You are asked to understand and to believe in the world she is writing about because she continually announces that it is just so gosh darn interesting! Her book does not reveal her or anyone's thought process.( I hope not, at least.) Rather it reads like a gossip colummn. Her references are all second and third hand, overheard conversations, or fragments of conversations that she only partly understands. This is quantum mechanics by Dear Abby. By comparison "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" seemed hard core. I am sure there is a market for this kind of thing, specifically a readership that feels comforted by the semblance of intimacy and privledge afforded by the gossiping style. But I don't think it is fair to most readers who are hopefully intelligent enough to be interested in her book to begin with.

Again, I strongly suspect the editors for many of Cole's problems. I don't think a writer of Cole's proven ability would have allowed herself into this mess without pressure from the publishers. There are a lot of exceptionally good science books out there stimulating the demand for other good books, but I fear that the public will be drawn away from them as publishers see bigger profits in flooding the market with mumbo jumbo.