Customer Reviews: The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos
Your Garage Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Ryley Walker Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Totes Summer-Event-Garden Amazon Cash Back Offer PilotWave7B PilotWave7B PilotWave7B  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis DollyParton Shop Now

Format: Hardcover|Change
Price:$25.06+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-10 of 89 reviews(4 star). Show all reviews
on May 16, 2011
Brian Greene is truly an excellent science writer. Though there are many ideas that cant be communicated to the lay reader and specifics almost never can, Brian Greene manages to illustrate the general ideas behind what many physicists are thinking and working on and why. The Hidden Reality is an overview of where modern day physics has taken us in terms of the potential nature of reality. In particular he explores the potential initial configurations of the universe and as well the subsequent potential mechanics and what these potentials mean for the nature of reality. He also discusses the nature of reality from the perspective of general relativity, string theory and quantum mechanics. I realize this is vague, but its hard to give a specific overview of what is talked about as the author is almost as concise as he can be to convey the ideas he attempts to. Nonetheless i'll give it a try.

The book starts out with the first example of how if we consider our planet and current aggregate configuration and history as unique, then the law of large numbers might cause some alarm in an infinite universe. In particular if we do thought experiment of assuming the universe is truly infinite (spatially with matter in all regions) then it implies that there must be copies of us out there. This results can be deduced from several vantage points and in the book, it is the fact that any negligbly small probability will be hit an infinite number of times if we have an infinite number of experiments. Though the "initial conditions" presented are just a hypothesis, this first chapter sets an eerie start which the book continues to build momentum on. The author then discusses inflationary universes and how they too give rise to multiverse scenarios in which parallel universes will remain unseen as they have inflated at distances that will never be reached. He also discusses what seem to be paradoxes of differing views of infinity, for example, those inside an expanding universe will consider it infinite space with finite time whereas outside they will consider it finite space with infinite time. One gets a glimpse of some of physicists insights but the ideas can be tough and i think to truly understand much of it deeply requires studying the math. The author then gives a brief outline of string theory and gets into the potential multiverse of branes that we might live in (i wont bother to try to paraphrase this part). Subsequent to this the author then introduces what I thought was the first model for parallel universes which is the quantum multiverse in which there is no collapse of the wave function and all possibilities are realized and the wave patterns we see are the parallel worlds interfering. The history of this is given as well as the philosophical misgivings of many scientists. The author then gets into the holographic universe which is pretty hard to grasp, (im pretty sure its hard to grasp even for the expert!) in which our sensations might all be a product of what happens on a lower dimensional space as there is a mathematical mapping between information of a surface with its higher dimensional body. This evolved from some blackhole information theory result... Clearly the book discusses things which are pretty out there but does a good job in trying to communicate what can be communicated to the reader. The book then ventures further into philosophy rather than science and discusses some ideas about what is the "reality" of a computed world and what is the "reality" that mathematical equations exist in.

Intertwined throughout the book is the authors discussion of what is science. How much of these interesting ideas about the universe is science rather than philosophy. Much theoretical physics, in particular string theory, has come under a lot of pressure for producing no real testable experiments to its validity (though the experiments being thought up are getting closer to testable) and the author discusses his ideas as to what is legitimate and what is not. The book is primarily on various multiverse possibilities for the universe and how basically all modern theories have multiverse interpretations. Embedded in the writing is also the authors philosophy to legitimize his views on science - he includes some fairly out there theories of computational universes (ie extraordinarily complex simlife type computations) and the multiverse of logically correct statements and equations to show where he draws the line. I pretty much think this is a 5 star book but it is not always consistent. For example, infinity is a complicated issue as there are levels of infinity, integers are countably infinite, the real line is not. In his first chapter, the author argues as to why a multiverse will have a copy of us, he invokes quantum mechanics to legitimize the discreteness of space and thus uses a limiting exercise in the countable sense to get to the conclusion. In the last chapter though he questions this implicitly (but doesnt discuss how it affects his previous arguments) by using the continuum of schrodingers equations values to say we cant escape an infinite configuration space. This is obviously subtle and in aggregate this is a very interesting read in which complicated arguments and phenomenon are well described and the nature of reality and ideas are tackled. I learned a lot and I think everyone can get something out of it.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 1, 2011
First a disclaimer: Brian Greene is my favorite writer of layman's books on cosmology and theoretical physics. I have enjoyed all three of his books. I consider myself an interested lay person with no formal education in physics or mathematics beyond high school. Greene writes in a clean and easily understood manner and has a gift for using everyday analogies or pictures to describe difficult concepts. I should add that he usually includes more detailed and mathematical explanations in the end notes. Even if you don't get the math (as I don't) these end notes can add a lot to the text.

Green explores all the various types of parallel universe that have emerged from cosmological, quantum and string theory with each type getting is own chapter or chapters of explanation. My dilemma with this book is that it's value really depends on whether you already know something about cosmology and parallel universes or whether you are coming at this cold. While Greene's writing is excellent as always, the book does not really break new ground, mainly because there isn't much new ground to be broken in the absence of major advances in theory or experimental evidence in the last few years. So if you have read other works in this area in recent years including Michio Kaku, Lisa Randall, Alexander Vilenkin or even Greene's previous book, I don't think you will find much that is new here and so only three stars. Nonetheless, as a lay reader I find the concepts of cosmology slippery and difficult to grasp and so Greene's lucid explanations always help even if I have read similar works in the last couple of years. However, if this is your first foray into cosmology then this is a great starting point for you and is worthy of five stars.

I'm absolutely fascinated by the idea that there are potentially other universes out there, perhaps even containing a copy of myself in them. I mean you just can't make this stuff up!
0Comment| 21 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
Brian Randolph Greene (born 1963) is an American theoretical physicist and string theorist who is professor at Columbia University and chairman of the World Science Festival since co-founding it in 2008. He has participated in several PBS television specials, and has also written books such as The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory,The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality,Icarus at the Edge of Time, etc.

He wrote in the Preface of this 2011 book, “Through physical insight and mathematical rigor, guided and confirmed by experimentation and observation, we’ve established that space, time, matter and energy engage a behavioral repertoire unlike anything any of us have ever directly witnessed. And now, penetrating analyses of these and related discoveries are leading us to what may be the next upheaval in understanding: the possibility that our universe is not the only universe. ‘The Hidden Reality’ explores this possibility.”

He says in the first chapter, “There was a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ … Yet a range of theoretical developments has gradually qualified the interpretation of ‘universe.’ … ‘universe’ has given way to other terms that capture the wider canvas on which the totality of reality may be painted. ‘Parallel worlds’ or ‘parallel universes’ or ‘multiple universes’ or ‘alternate universes’ or the ‘metaverse,’ ‘megaverse,’ or ‘multiverse’---they’re all synonymous and … used to embrace not just our universe but a spectrum of others that may be out there… what’s at the heart of the subject, is whether there exist realms that challenge convention by suggesting that what we’ve long thought to be THE universe is only one component of a far grander, perhaps far stranger, and mostly hidden, reality.” (Pg. 4)

He asserts, “The mathematics underlying quantum mechanics---or at least, one perspective on the math---suggests that ALL possible outcomes happen, each inhabiting its own separate universe… And in each such universe, there’s a copy of you witnessing one or the other outcome, thinking---incorrectly---that your reality is the only reality… quantum mechanics … says that there’s no such thing as a road untraveled. Yet each such road---each reality---is hidden from all others… [But] even today, after more than half a century of vetting, the proposal remains controversial. Some quantum practitioners argue that it has already been proved correct, while others claim just as assuredly that the mathematical underpinnings don’t hold together.” (Pg. 5-6)

He concludes the chapter, “The subject of parallel universes is highly speculative. No experiment or observation has established that any version of the idea is realized in nature. So my point in writing this book is not to convince you that we’re part of a multiverse. I‘m not convinced---and, speaking generally, no one should be convinced---of anything not supported by hard data. That said, I find it both curious and compelling that numerous developments in physics, if followed sufficiently far, bump into some variation on the parallel-universe theme… all of the parallel-universe proposals that we will take seriously emerge unbidden from the mathematical theories developed to explain conventional data and observations. My intention, then, is to lay out clearly and concisely the intellectual steps and the chain of theoretical insights that have led physicists … to consider the possibility that ours is one of many universes.”

He states early in the second chapter, “if the universe is infinite there’s a breathtaking conclusion that has received relatively scant attention. In the far reaches of an infinite cosmos, there’s a galaxy that looks just like the Milky Way, with a solar system that’s the spitting image of ours, with a planet that’s a dead ringer for earth, with a house that’s indistinguishable from yours, inhabited by someone who looks just like you, who is right now reading this very book and imagining you… And there’s not just one such copy. In an infinite universe, there are infinitely many. In some… he or she … feels in need of a snack and has put the book down. In others, he or she … is someone you’d rather not meet in a dark alley. And you won’t. These copies would inhabit realms so distant that light traveling since the big bang wouldn’t have had time to cross the spatial expanse that separates us. But even without the capacity to observe these realms, we’ll see that … if the cosmos is infinitely large, it is home to infinitely many parallel worlds---some identical to ours, some differing from ours, many bearing no resemblance to our word at all.” (Pg. 10-11)

He states, “I should declare my bias. I believe that a physical system is completely determined by the arrangements of its particles… This reductionist view is common among physicists, but there are certainly people who think otherwise. Especially when it comes to life, some believe that an essential nonphysical aspect (spirit, soul, life force, chi, and so on) is required to animate the physical. Although I remain open to this possibility, I’ve never encountered any evidence to support it. The position that makes the most sense to me is that one’s physical and mental characteristics are nothing but a manifestation of how the particles in one’s body are arranged.” (Pg. 33-34)

Moving on to string theory, he admits, “In the years since [his earlier books] appeared, the theory’s general health and status have faced a spate of public questioning. Which is completely reasonable. For all its progress, string theory has yet to make definitive predictions whose experimental investigation could prove the theory right or wrong.” (Pg. 72) He adds, “in a universe with nine dimensions of space and one of time… the equations of string theory become trouble-free. I’d love to explain in purely nontechnical terms how this comes about, but I can’t, and I’ve never encountered anyone who can… As to why the equation takes this precise form, I can’t offer any intuitive, nontechnical explanation. But if you do the calculation, that’s where the math leads.” (Pg. 83-84)

He also acknowledges, “if you knew exactly what the extra dimensions of string theory looked like, you’d be well on your way to predicting the detailed properties of vibrating strings, and hence the detailed properties of the elementary particles the strings vibrate into existence. The hurdle is… that no one has been able to figure out the exact geometrical form of the extra dimensions… The lack of a unique specification of the extra dimensions is the main stumbling block preventing string theorists from making definitive predictions.” (Pg. 90-91)

He also suggests, “The failure to find supersymmetric particles might mean that they don’t exist, but it also might mean that they are too heavy for even the Large Hadron Collider to produce; the failure to find evidence for extra dimensions might mean they don’t exist, but it might also mean they are too small for our technologies to access… As of today, then, the most promising experimental results would most likely not be able to prove string theory wrong. Yet make no mistake. If we find evidence of extra dimensions, supersymmetry… or any of the other potential signatures, that will be a huge moment in the search for a unified theory.” (Pg. 96) He argues, “it’s possible to mount a convincing argument for a theory involving a multiverse even if we can’t obtain any direct evidence for universes beyond our own… the mere invocation of inaccessible universe does not consign a proposal to stand outside science.” (Pg. 170)

He underscores, “these scenarios are hypothetical. I invoke them because they illuminate a possible profile for scientific insight and verification in the context of a multiverse.” (Pg. 175) And “The strategy… is to use the mathematics of inflationary cosmology and string theory to calculate the distribution of universes… The rub is that so far no one has been able to do so.” (Pg. 176) And “a refined multiverse calculation will require a precise understanding of the detailed properties that characterize the constituent universes… This is essential if a multiverse is to stand a chance of yielding definitive conclusions. Researchers are working hard to achieve this goal, but as of today, they have yet to reach it.” (Pg. 179) And “How do we determine whether galaxies and life are more abundant in one or another type of universe when the number of universes involved is infinite…? … a definitive procedure has yet to be derived and agreed upon.” (Pg. 183)

He explains, “If a multiverse proposal doesn’t have such favorable features, it will lack the precision that for so long has distinguished physics from other disciplines. To some researchers, that’s an unacceptable price to pay. For quite a while, I took that position too, but my view has gradually shifted… I and many others have come to realize that although some fundamental features of the universe are suited for such precise mathematical predictions, others are not---or, at the very least, it’s logically possible that there may be features that stand beyond precise prediction.” (Pg. 186-187)

He asserts, ,”The potential problem with the Many Worlds approach, and the reason it remains controversial, is that it may undercut this means for assessing the credibility of quantum mechanics… how can we make sense of the traditional probabilistic predictions, which … say that with equal odds you’ll see one result OR the other? The natural inclination of many people when they first encounter this issue is to think that among the various yous in the Many Worlds approach, there’s one who’s somehow more real than the others… the common thought is that only one of these beings is REALLY you… I appreciate this response. Years ago, when I first learned about these ideas, I had it too. But the reasoning runs completely counter to the Many Worlds approach. Many Worlds practices minimalist architecture. Probability waves simply evolve by Schrödinger’s equation. That’s it.” (Pg. 226-227)

He goes further, “If this line of reasoning is correct, then there are physical processes taking place on some distant surface that… are fully linked to the processes taking place in my fingers, arms, and brain as I type these words at my desk. Our experiences here, and that distant reality there, would form the most interlocked of parallel worlds. Phenomena in the two---I’ll call them ‘Holographic Parallel Universes’---would be so fully joined that their respective evolutions would be as connected as me and my shadow.” (Pg. 261) He adds, “That string theory embraces the holographic principle, and provides concrete examples of holographic parallel worlds, is a testament to how cutting-edge developments are coming together in a powerful synthesis.” (Pg. 272)

He asserts, “Any multiverse that’s ever been or ever will be proposed … will therefore be part of this mega-congomerate, which I’ll call the ‘Ultimate Multiverse.’ … there are other universes out there, all possible universes in fact, and we inhabit the one we do because it’s among those that support our form of life… The point is that the attribute of existence affords a universe no special status, because in the Ultimate Multiverse all possible universes DO exist. The question of why one set of laws describes a real universe---ours---while all others are sterile abstractions evaporates. There are no sterile laws. All sets of laws describe real universes.” (Pg. 294)

He summarizes, “In this book we’ve explored a candidate for the next major development in this story: the possibility that our universe is part of a multiverse… But determining whether any of these ideas goes beyond mathematical musings of the human mind will require more insight, knowledge, calculation, experiment, and observation than we’ve so far achieved.” (Pg. 308) He continues, “the multiverse concept … differs qualitatively from our earlier migrations from center stage. By invoking realms that may be forever beyond our ability to examine… multiverses seemingly erect substantial barriers to scientific knowledge… More distressing is the worry that by invoking a multiverse, we enter the domain of theories that can’t be tested… As I’ve argued, the multiverse concept is more nuanced. We’ve seen various ways in which a theory that involves a multiverse might offer testable predictions… because they emerge from a common theory there may be features they all share. Failure to find those features, through measurements we undertake here in the one universe to which we have access, would prove that multiverse proposal wrong. Confirmation of those features … would build confidence that the proposal was right. Or… correlation between physical features can provide another class of testable predictions.” (Pg. 312)

He notes, “A complication of scientific life … is that some of our theoretical ideas have soared past our ability to test or observe. String theory has for some time been the poster child for this situation; the possibility that we’re part of a multiverse provides an even more sprawling example. I’ve laid out a general prescription for how a multiverse proposal might be testable, but at our current level of understanding none of the multiverse theories we’ve encountered yet meet the criteria. With ongoing research, this situation could greatly improve.” (Pg. 313) He quotes Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, and observes, “In the absence of compelling experimental or observational results, deciding which mathematics should be taken seriously is as much art as it is science.” (Pg. 319)

With each new book, Greene (an excellent science writer, by the way) seemingly gets progressively “farther out.” Those interested in speculative scientific and cosmological theories may love this book, but others of us (who prefer their science to be a bit more empirically “grounded”) may prefer his earlier books to this one.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
VINE VOICEon July 25, 2016
What a fascinating and profound book. As I read through it I was constantly reminded of Hesse's The Glass Bead Game The Glass Bead Game: (Magister Ludi) A Novel and Doctor Who Doctor Who: The E-Space Trilogy- The Tom Baker Years 1974-1981 (Stories 112-114)

Having been educated in grammar school in England specializing in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry in concrete terms, I left the physical science behind until later in my life when I returned to the world of astronomy and began to explore the universe, partly through prompting of post world war two science fiction writers and by my inquisitive nature generally. Carl Sagan's Cosmos Cosmos: Carl Sagan helped my exploration to move into a higher gear as did the earlier Tao of Physics The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism.

This book screamed out at me as I was looking for sources on evolutionary biology and reawakend by earlier instincts in what I may call my HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

It was tough to get my head around some of the notions, I must admit, but this book makes for compelling reading and certainly responded to my skeptical nature. The author writes clearly and the central conceptions are transformed into terms which can be understood my a more general reader rather than an expert. I certainly no longer just look up at the stars on a clear night and recognize constellations any more. The scale and magnitude of the universe with it's puzzles such as dark matter and gravitational waves are mind boggling to say the least.

It is a bit of a challenge to say the least but perseverance will be intellectually rewarding and may help in our assessment of our own beings and our place in the great scheme of things.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 8, 2014
This book has a lot of overlap with Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe.

Greene uses less provocative language than Tegmark, but makes up for that by suggesting 5 more multiverses than Tegmark (3 of which depend on string theory for credibility, and 2 that Tegmark probably wouldn't label as multiverses).

I thought about making some snide remarks about string theory being less real than the other multiverses. Then I noticed that what Greene calls the ultimate multiverse (all possible universes) implies that string theory universes (or at least computable approximations) are real regardless of whether we live in one.

Like Tegmark, Greene convinces me that inflation which lasts for infinite time implies infinite space and infinite copies of earth, but fails to convince me that he has a strong reason for assuming infinite time.

The main text is mostly easy to read. Don't overlook the more technical notes at the end - the one proposing an experiment that would distinguish the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics from the Copenhagen interpretation is one of the best parts of the book.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 20, 2014
I enjoy reading about parallel and multiverses that come about from some areas in current theoretical research in fundamental physics. I selected this book of the many on the topic of parallel universes since it was written by Brian Greene who is a string theorist and is working on a variety of these topics. He is a person truly gifted with explaining complex topics in physics in ways that make them easier to understand. I have enjoyed his book "The Elegant Universe" on string/M-theory along with the NOVA series DVD's on this book. I also enjoyed his NOVA series DVD's based on his second book "The Fabric of the Cosmos". With this in mind I read The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. Greene in this book lays out and explains nine different versions of parallel universes. The deep laws are those of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Some physicists would say that string/M-theory which he describes are not deep laws. The explanations of all subjects are as expected clear and supported with an excellent notes section in the back. If you want to learn about parallel universes and the ideas that they come from this is an excellent book to read. That's why the book gets a four star rating.

The subtitle says the Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. All nine of the parallel universes are based on speculative physics. Some much more speculative than others.That these theories are speculative he admits throughout the book for which he deserves credit. However, in reading this book I got the feeling that this book was the long version of a grant proposal submitted to be funded. This comes about in the numerous places in which he says much has been done but give us more time to work on these ideas. Part of the reason is that some of the parallel universes he describe depend upon string/M-theory which is a controversial topic in physics. This is because in the 30-40 years of its existence, string/M-theories have yet to make any unique predictions that have been observed experimentally in support of these theories. The theory so far is not even falsifiable. Lee Smolin addresses these concerns in his book "Trouble with Physics" as does Peter Woit in his book "Not Even Wrong". The same criticism is also true for the multiverses that come from inflationary. cosmology. However, there are a large number of sharp physicists working in these areas so it is unclear what the future holds. Parallel universe's from Hugh Everett's thesis work on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, now known as the many worlds interpretation is another area of current research in physics and philosophy. This work is based on the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Greene suggests an experiment in the notes to test this theory, but it is unclear if this has been clearly thought out and if this experiment is even possible.

The discussion on computer simulated universes is interesting. It describes a universe similar to that in the movie "The Thirteenth Floor". While not a parallel universe in ways that physics suggests a simulated universe would make the ultimate computer game. A virtual reality that could absorb the programmers life into the simulation. Almost the ultimate drug. Live life to its fullest would have an additional impetus if you live in a simulated universe so that the creator of the simulation would not get bored with you and stop the simulation. However, since you can't prove that you are living in a simulated universe, do you need to live a life to satisfy the simulator? Interesting.

The final chapter entitled "The Limits of Inquiry Multiverses and the Future" is well written and makes an interesting conclusion to the book.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 6, 2011
Brian Greene gets us to date with a great overview of the current cosmology theories. He explains how we got to where we are today, and what needs to be done in the future. He provides a lot of notes and references, which allows the reader to further explore each topic. I thought his position on each of the theories was very objective, and he didn't try to push his ideas as being correct as is often the case with theoretical physicists.

Readers can use the book as a starting point for further exploration. Some of the theories are more interesting than others. Having the theories summarized together allows one to compare them and to make value judgments for spending more research time. This is of great service to those of us who are not active in this field, but have great interest in it.

This book is not a one time read. I know that I will reread parts of it for the next several years. It would be great if in about ten years Mr. Greene gets us up to date again. He can count me in.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 13, 2012
One day I am going to personally thank Dr. Greene for taking the time to interpret all that math into language even I can pretend to understand. Granted, I had to re-read sections of this book multiple times in order to free my brain from vapor lock; but if you hang around with non-physicists, and you want to throw around some multiverse references at your next D&D event with mock authority, then this is the book for you! Amaze your friends! Impress your parents! Wade out to the deep end of the pool without your water wings.

Certain theists will enjoy this book as justification that all science is just a bunch of idle speculation, because they too will not have had enough understanding of it to directly comprehend the mathematics behind the story. Attentive atheists might want to ask such yokels how they would explain the double-slit experiment results within a Biblical frame of reference, and smugly wait for the hijinks to ensue. Open-minded Engineers, like myself, will frequently need to lie down for awhile to rest the brain.

To Dr. Greene's credit, he never comes off as superior to you, even when he is engaging in physics baby talk so you can have a decent shot at grasping an esoteric concept, such as probability waves or quantum vacuum fluctuations. He even resists baiting religious fundamentalists regarding the explanation of the singularity, unlike the rude-boy, Dr. Hawkings.

So why only four stars? Well, as this is a popular book about science, it should be marked partly on its presentation and entertainment value. Stylistically Sagan was a better presenter, no offense meant to the author, so I cannot give him full marks. At points it was easy to get lost in the weeds. Sagan left you with the impression that you could explain space-time to your girlfriend without a look of no-confidence from her.

Still, all in all, it was one of the best popular science books that I have had the pleasure of reading in a while.

I've read through a significant number of the posted reviews here for this book. It seems that many of these negative reactions stem from a strong bias against string theory in general. In fact I share much of their skepticism towards the subject. Such complaints are somewhat misplaced in this case, though, as it was not the author's intent to provide yet another apologia for string theory. Rather, it is more or less a survey of the various multiverse hypotheses being considered by physicists with a digest of their explanatory potential. It is not meant to be a definitive scientific text, or is it ever assumed to be settled science.

Greene mentions his own skepticism regarding many of these theories very early in the book, and continually warns the reader of the very speculative nature of them. As a glimpse into the rarefied field of the-theory-of-everything this book may indeed be biased towards string theory, but given Mr. Greene's background it should not surprise anyone. Still, I found this book helpful in understanding some of the motivation behind the experiments currently being conducted at CERN's LHC. Experimentation, as Greene points out here, wins out over bloviation. Treated in this fashion it is an excellent primer into such insights.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 3, 2013
This is an attempt to make some of the consequences of recent physics/cosmology/philosophical thinking accessible to a general audience.

The problem it may have is that a general reader may find some of these ideas and their consequences quite disturbing. On the other hand, a scientifically trained reader may wish more "meat."

I feel the book gave me some valuable new insights, and I am grateful to the author for having published it. On the other hand, I am not quite sure where to go with these insights.

As an aside, some of the meditative communities have been wrestling with similar quandaries for quite some time. I am not sure I would be satisfied with their resolutions either. As I understand it, their resolutions sometimes come down to: "Now that you understand that everything that you believed in and upon which you based your life is wrong, you should continue just as before."
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 9, 2014
Brian Greene is such a great writer. He is able to communicate complicated concepts in simple ways so that almost anyone can understand them. This is no small feat given the topics he is trying to convey. I have really enjoyed all of his books and the information he conveys is... well... mind-blowing.

I'll admit there were a couple of places in this book where I got lost and couldn't quite follow his train of thought, even after a couple reads. And I'll also admit I didn't like this one quite as much as his first two books. But, it's an amazing accomplishment and a super interesting read. I highly recommend.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse