Customer Reviews

The Void

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

While a very well written book, The Void spends most of its 156 pages not getting to the point. But then the title is misleading -- this is not about voids or vacuums or the idea of nothingness. Instead, Close writes a summary, fairly historical, of the theories contributing to the current views of the universe. We hear a lot about Newton and Einstein, Lorentz and Michelson, and so on. Special and general relativity are explained again (as they have been in myriad other books). Something as important as the Higgs field is glossed over, while such things as inertial frames of reference or concepts of curved space-time are covered in a tad too much depth or too much repetition. This is really a book for someone who needs a quick overview, rather like it is the introductory chapter to a text with a lot more depth. And from my perspective, it seems to ramble here and there, as if the author doesn't quite want to make a point. Even at the end, the summary shows that the book was not about the void or vacuum but about what fills it and defines its boundaries/properties. Not quite what I was looking for.

This little book covers a LOT of science in a pretty short amount of time. Another reviewer said that it deals rather less with the void than one might think from the title. While this is true, there isn't much that can be said about nothing without understanding that in the real universe, nothing is truly something after all. That said, there is a lot of explaining of "stuff" to get to explaining nothing, which leads the book to have a lot less nothing than you might expect.

That said, the science is very solid and quite clearly explained. However, having extensively studied physics and chemistry years ago, this read more like a refresher course to me. I didn't have too much trouble making sense of most of the science because I have been exposed to it in great depth (even though I may've forgotten some things). I worry that to the lay reader, the book would be extremely hard going, even as there are many analogies drawn, so I would put it closer to three stars for a reader with little or no science background.

Still, written well overall and with great clarity. An interesting concept.

"Void" seems to be the simplest of all notions, apparently requiring no thought whatsoever. It is what remains where everything is taken away. But a closer scrutiny reveals that "void" is not trivial as it may first seem. Is it physically possible to achieve such a thing as the absence of all matter? Even if possible, is what remains a truly empty space? And what is space anyway - is it possible to talk about it in the absence of matter? It is these and related questions that this short book tries to answer. It takes the reader on a journey from philosophical and speculative ideas of classic antiquity, to the most advanced frontiers of modern theoretical and experimental Physics. For a book of its size it covers a lot of ground. It explains where the notion that "the nature abhors vacuum" comes from, and how it took almost two thousand years to refute it by actually creating the first known artificial vacuum. The book explains how the ideas about the vacuum have evolved over the centuries, and in particular what an effect the discoveries of quantum mechanics and general relativity have had on it. Today we believe that even the perfect vacuum is strictly speaking not completely empty, and it is a rather complicated and complex entity. The book concludes with some of the current Physics speculations and how they may pertain to our ideas about "nothing."

The book is written in an interesting and easy-flowing style, and it does not overwhelm the reader with technical details and arcane jargon. There are hardly any equations in it, and the ones that are present are straightforward and used in order to illustrate a point that otherwise would be too cumbersome to describe. Overall, this is a very good book with a fresh and engaging perspective.

Frank Close writes in the Oxford style, a little eccentric and quite profound. This is the clearest explanation of the Void, the so-called vacuum of empty space, that I have read. He shows very clearly how physicists came to understand the vacuum of space, which is really a quantum plenum. Well-written and clear (for the most part), this small volume is worth the price and the reading.

I can understand how some see the title of this book as misleading, but after reading it, I found it wonderful and swirling with currents of energy and supercharged particle of knowledge. A thoroughly amazing little book with content - and an approach - that mirrors the subject matter: nothingness is but energy misunderstood. Read it and prepare for a trip across unimaginably small distances that will change you forever.

I enjoyed this little book, but I found myself a little more confused than I usually get with popular physics books. Most are focused on small particle physics and cosmology and concerned with the apparent permanent disunion of quantum and relativity physics. The author, Frank Close, has chosen instead to direct the reader's attention to "empty" space.

The book discusses the early Greek philosophers and their "take" on whether a void can or cannot exist and why. Theirs is perforce a matter of logical deduction based on what they knew of nature and what they thought they knew of how it works. Lacking even the simplest technology for experiment, they still made some very astute suggestions about the underlying principles of physics which stood the test of time until better technology turned up. The author then follows the remarkable scientific theories and experiments of the 17th and 18th century macro-physicists, who were able to apply new equipment to the questions of what exists and why. Professor close then discusses the modern era and what research with high end, big-buck technology has told us about the void.

By testing some of the theories of quantum physics and the character and lifespan of small particles--which has required larger and larger equipment and greater demands on energy affordable only to collectives of nations rather than to individuals working alone--modern scientists have begun to illuminate the world of the very small, which in turn gives information on the void. This includes possible verification of the logically unsettling theory that something (particles and energy) can actually come from nothing (the void) so long as it is a very, very small loan and/or has a very, very short term. Focusing thus on the void, Professor Close attempts to answer some of the questions about where the universe came from and whether there are other universes out there somewhere.

The book is basically like many others on the subject, but it takes a different perspective on cosmology, forcing the reader to look at the topic with new eyes. Others have also looked at the void, though generally starting from the concepts of black holes, Hawking radiation, matter and antimatter, and what quantum theory suggests about the void.

An interesting perspective on "nothing."

Ok, enough of the bad puns!

But as the other reviewers noted, the book strayed markedly from the promise of exploring the meaning of the Void, that is, "existence" before the Big Bang and the creation of the Universe and all its physical machinations and manfestations. I kept waiting for the expostion to come, some theory, and instead page after page of sometimes complicated and incomprehensible science theorms.

Ultimately, the author avoided the premise, perhaps because there is no answer to that Cosmic query known to mankind.

While a very well written book, The Void spends most of its 156 pages not getting to the point. But then the title is misleading -- this is not about voids or vacuums or the idea of nothingness. Instead, Close writes a summary, fairly historical, of the theories contributing to the current views of the universe. We hear a lot about Newton and Einstein, Lorentz and Michelson, and so on. Special and general relativity are explained again (as they have been in myriad other books). Something as important as the Higgs field is glossed over, while such things as inertial frames of reference or concepts of curved space-time are covered in a tad too much depth or too much repetition. This is really a book for someone who needs a quick overview, rather like it is the introductory chapter to a text with a lot more depth. And from my perspective, it seems to ramble here and there, as if the author doesn't quite want to make a point. Even at the end, the summary shows that the book was not about the void or vacuum but about what fills it and defines its boundaries/properties. Not quite what I was looking for.