|
The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (平装)
by Brian Greene
| Category:
Science, Origin of universe, Science for non-experts |
| Market price: ¥ 178.00
MSL price:
¥ 158.00
[ Shop incentives ]
|
| Stock:
In Stock |
MSL rating:
 Good for Gifts |
| MSL Pointer Review:
An incredible book and a fascinating read that anyone can access, it goes through most of 20th century physics, starting with relativity, then onto quantum mechanics before going full bore into string theory. |
| If you want us to help you with the right titles you're looking for, or to make reading recommendations based on your needs, please contact our consultants. |
|
| |
AllReviews |
1 2   | Total 2 pages 14 items |
|
|
D. Nishimoto (MSL quote), USA
<2007-02-09 00:00>
String theory suggests the smallest components of the Universe have no mass content, the small fundamental component, and occupy spatial dimension. Strings have a huge tension causing them to contract in size to 10 -33 centimeters and the energy of the string is typically high because of the tension of the string because more energy is required to put the string in motion. The vibrations in the string are in discrete units; the length of a string is planks length meaning hundred billion billion times smaller (10 20 power) than the nucleus of an atom. Strings can not be direct verified, yet, and an accelerator a million billion times more powerful would need to be built to verify that a string is not a particle. Strings are always experiencing some quantum vibration and where quantum jitter is negative reducing the energy of the string, such that a graviton can be described as having zero mass particle transmitted at the speed of light.
String theory becomes the unification theory. Each string can undergo a huge variety of different vibration variety known as resonance; different vibration patterns of a fundamental string give rise to different masses and forces; particles like photons, graviton, weak gauge bosons, and gluons are strings resonating at different energy levels; all strings are the same, however, they resonance with different amplitudes and frequencies and the shorter the wavelength the greater the energy and greater energy means greater mass and the mass of a particle determines its gravitational properties. For example a graviton plank tension is 10 39 power of a ton.
If the universe is super symmetric, the particles of nature must come in pairs whose spin differs by a spin, thus partnering matter and force particles. Photons, gluons, and weak gauge bosons have a spin of 1, whereas, a graviton has a spin of 2. An electron and positron string can combine to form a photon string. The strings on the collision course are oscillating string loops, the string travels a bit and releases the energy; creation and cancellation, what a waste.
Superstrings needed higher dimension to explain super gravity and theories encompassing gravity and super symmetry. Kuluza-Klein, 5th dimensional space demonstrated that string can vibrate in extended dimension that are tiny and curled up and for string theory to make sense, the higher dimensional math model required 10 dimensions plus one for time. Calabi-Yau spaces suggests six dimensions could be represented in one tightly curled up, complicated knotting geometric structure. Calabi-Yau spaces have homes and families of lowest energy string vibrations. Multiple holes means the patters of string vibration would fall into multiple energy families. |
|
|
A reader (MSL quote), USA
<2007-02-09 00:00>
While much of this book is probably too dense for beginners, there is hardly a better source for informed laypeople to learn about the latest theoretical advances in astrophysics. In this particular informed layperson's view, Einstein's relativity explains the vast cosmology of stars and galaxies, while quantum mechanics explains the subatomic realms of quarks and electrons. Unfortunately these two theories of the cosmos come into conflict in extreme situations such as black holes and the big bang, with that pesky old gravity messing up the orderly theoretical functioning of the universe. Brian Greene's specialty, string theory, is the most audacious and currently believable candidate for Theory of Everything, though the theory has mostly been built from esoteric developments in bizarre mathematics and thought experiments, rather than direct observation.
Here Greene explains with remarkable precision and understandability how string theory works and where it currently stands, but the science is so complex that even his great writing leads to lots of head scratching. Early in the book Greene does a fantastic job of introducing string theory itself, remarkably in just two paragraphs, and in the next few chapters gives the most understandable non-mathematical explanations for relativity and quantum mechanics that I've ever seen. The rest of the book gets more complicated and the vast esoteric vagaries of string theory can be a real strain on the brain, but Greene deserves much credit for kicking off the reader's deep thoughts on some really extreme scientific concepts. And finally, Greene spends a sizeable portion of the book explaining that string theory is just that - a theory - which is not fully accepted by all physicists. Greene gives credit to all his colleagues where credit is due, openly admits to the weaknesses of the theory, and speculates on possible theoretical improvements. That makes many of the negative reviews here, which are obviously from some of Greene's more narrow-minded and professionally jealous university competitors, invalid and unworthy of further discussion. |
|
|
Daniel Sanderman (MSL quote), USA
<2007-02-09 00:00>
Either love him or hate him: Brian Greene and his book are here to stay. Recently, I have been intrigued by the ideas of physics and have been digesting the work of a few physicists (and there seems to be a number) who also write extremely well. Alan Lightman comes to mind (Great Ideas in Physics) and I must say that Greene's book does a much better job explaining Special & General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to a reader without much of a physics background. The first couple hundred pages of this book truly surprised me, as I was impressed with Lightman's treatment of these areas, not knowing that such a good account was out there. If you're looking for an introduction to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and the debate surrounding the two, you've come to the right place.
I also enjoyed Greene's chapters that gave the overview of strings and the general shape of the theory. Many of the later chapters are highly technical and, while I read them carefully, I know that the ideas will not stay with me long, particularly in places where Greene has not provided a nice visual metaphor to help the solidify the concept. Greene is so good at doing this in earlier chapters, one wonders if he simply got tired as the book progressed or if the complexity of the subject matter has simply advanced beyond a point where metaphors can even begin to latch onto the concepts they are aimed at clarifying. In either case, this book is truly memorable for certain images and metaphors and these concepts will stick in your mind.
Is this a book for the masses? Yes and no. I think that most educated persons will be able to get much out of the first couple hundred of pages, but you may need to spend some time with them making sure that you are understanding it. As the chapters march on, you will find yourself losing interest and getting lost in some of Greene's explanations. I think that only someone with some background in physics will understand everything that is held between these pages, but this should not deter you from reading it. No matter what you think of string theory, Brian Greene's book is very intriguing and a nice read-even for a Philosophy/English major.
|
|
|
Tristan (MSL quote), USA
<2007-02-09 00:00>
Modern physics is based on the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which have been proven true, which creates a devastating problem. Mathematically, the theories contradict each other and, according to Greene, cannot coexist. This problem led physicists like Einstein to try and find a universal theory that underlies these two and allows them to work harmoniously. They brought on the string theory, which is considered to be the complete theory that contains all of our knowledge on the universe and how it works. Brian Greene is, as said on the book, one of the world's leading string theorists and recounts all of the different aspects and ideas that coincide with the string theory. Some of them are extremely bizarre and surprising, like an eleven-dimensional universe or the random, chaotic activity of particles on the quantum level, but Greene uses realistic allusions to help people with even the mildest of backgrounds understand. I never thought I could comprehend the idea of more than the four conventional dimensions, but Greene's use of an ant and a hose cleared it all up for me. Same goes for the likes of black holes, gravity, relativity, accelerated motion, particle movement, and so on.
Most of us choose to live life like we witness it and not accept the idea that our "safe" and "predictable" universe is far more complicated and strange than we imagine. How many people know that it is possible to walk through a wall if your particles line up perfectly (extremely rare but possible) or that in empty space, particles are constantly appearing for instants of time before vanishing forever? At some point, we need to accept the fact that if we are walking down the road and pass a stationary fire hydrant, that hydrant's claim of being the one in motion past a stationary us is just as legitimate. If you find the fact that you can stand outside a black hole's gravitational pull for one year and make earth age 10,000 years fascinating, then Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe is the perfect book for you.
|
|
|
Adam (MSL quote), USA
<2007-02-09 00:00>
With all the accomplishments founded upon modern physics concepts, a monstrous discrepancy lurks beneath two of the sciences most praised theories, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both ideas attempt to explain core functions of the universe. General relativity concerns itself with a broad and expansive theory based upon smooth spatial dimensions. Quantum mechanics depicts the minute interactions of the building blocks of all matter, sub atomic particles. The contrast lies in relativities need for a universe composed of smooth spatial geometry and quantum mechanics proposition of quantum jitters and other violent, irregular, movements.
In an attempt to remedy this failure, scientists such as author Brian Greene have put forth the superstring theory. Superstring theory is very much a work in progress, but so far it establishes the most fundamental element of the universe as infinitesimally small one dimensional strings. These strings are arranged and composed into multi-dimensional spaces (current theory suggests 10 spatial dimensions on the string level) that compose all other sub atomic particles. The massive complexities of string theory, and the obviously inability to test for the existence of such a small particle, creates mathematical problems for physicists in the string theory field. Approximate solutions of approximate equations are the only current method for advancing the validity and utility of the theory.
The Elegant Universe concerns itself strictly with the science behind physics and not the human element. While certain points in The Elegant Universe may trouble readers whom are not adept at mathematics of physics, Greene's explanations are clear and complete.
To Greene, the problem between general relativity and quantum mechanics is a burden upon the human understanding of the universe that arrests the value of both concepts. Greene likely felt compelled to write this novel to bring attention to the still progressing and fascinating science of physics. The noticeable lack of attention paid to the author throughout The Elegant Universe indicates that Brian Greene did not seek to further his reputation as a string theorist by publishing a book, but rather to make available to the literary public the surprising errors in modern physics and the necessity in solving them before we can wholly accept what our universe is.
If you are interested in a better understanding of our universe or physics in general then The Elegant Universe is a valuable addition to your library. The novel does come with a caution though, the reading can be tedious and complex if one is not prepared for it. If you consider academia to be a hobby then this novel will be an enlightening adventure into a science that dares to dream big (or incalculably small). If you are looking for a recreational novel that requires only a mild amount of mental participation then I suggest you look else ware. |
|
|
Thomas Paul (MSL quote), USA
<2007-02-09 00:00>
Superstring Theory is the hot topic in Physics these days and this book is written by a physicist heavily involved in research on the topic. The book starts with a quick introduction to special relativity, general relativity, and then quantum mechanics. It is a lot of information to digest in three quick chapters so at least some familiarity with the topics will be useful. Think of this more as a refresher than a tutorial. The author then explains why current theories have a huge hole and how string theory might be able to close that hole.
The author does a very good job of explaining string theory to the point where a layman can actually make some sense of it all. He uses examples, metaphors, and analogies that simplify the concepts so that although we may not have the deep understanding that a physicist would have we can at least get a glimpse of what ten dimensional space is like and why it is important to string theory. Although the author is a proponent of the theory this does not prevent him from allowing the critics of the theory to have their say.
I will admit that the book does bog down in places and not all his explanations are crystal clear. I did feel lost in places and never got a real feel for ten dimensional space although I did at least get an idea of why it is important. The Nova series based on the book covers the same territory but the book goes into more detail so if the Nova series intrigued you then this book is well worth reading. |
|
|
R. Michaels (MSL quote), USA
<2007-02-09 00:00>
It is fascinating and gratifying to read about the recent progress that young geniuses like Brian Greene (the author) are making in theoretical physics. This book is an exposition on superstring theory, which has the promise of being a "theory of everything", seeking to explain the origin of elementary particles as being different resonant patterns of a string or perhaps a membrane, as well as the unification of the various forces and the evolution of the universe. This subject is extremely difficult mathematically -- it occupies the very highest talent level in physics -- and yet Dr. Greene does an extraordinary job of explaining the essential ideas in non-technical language for the intelligent lay person. The book conveys the excitement about the recent discoveries, and recounts some of Greene's own original work, providing the reader a fascinating glimpse into the creative process. The explanations of relativity and quantum mechanics are among the best non-technical explanations I have read. The need for superstrings (or ultimately M-theory) is well motivated and the basic idea of the theory is well explained. The theory's limitations are discussed forthrightly. I was inspired by the discussions about the future directions of the research and the large questions that remain unanswered. As an experimental physicist who is far removed from these developments, I am admittedly not in a position to judge the true accuracy of the book, but at least it seemed fairly clear. One improvement I could recommend if there is a future edition: Although the author did comment that the experimental confirmation and characterization of supersymmetry would be important, more emphasis of this point may be warranted since the tax paying public will be asked for millions of dollars for a next generation of particle accelerators. |
|
|
Joseph Pierre (MSL quote), USA
<2007-02-09 00:00>
A remarkable exposition of the string theory. Brian Greene is a high-energy physicist of the first rank, and he does an excellent job of explaining the history and background of theoretical science, which led to the latest superstring theory. Beginning with Newtonian physics he leads the reader through relativity and quantum mechanics with clear, logical, everyday illustrations, although his explanation of quantum mechanics did get a little rarefied-understandable for sub-atomic behavior that is often described as "weird."
He explains the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the resulting need for a unifying theory, which gave rise to the string theory, which seems to have the potential to become a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.):
"The moment you encounter string theory and realize that almost all of the major developments in physics over the last hundred years emerge - and emerge with such elegance-from such a simple starting point, you realize that this incredibly compelling theory is in a class of its own" - Michael Green, formerly of Queen Mary College - one of the pioneers of string theory
What is string theory? Simply put, it proposes that the basic, radical building block of all sub-atomic particles, energy and matter is not a point particle, but rather a one-dimensional string-loop about a hundred billion billion times smaller (the so-called Planck length) than an atomic nucleus which vibrates at an undetermined, but potentially infinite number of wavelengths, amplitudes and tensions, comparable to a violin string The various wavelengths and amplitudes give the "particles" their characteristic properties.
Our present-day experiments are unable to resolve the microscopic stringy nature of matter: Greene says we would need an accelerator to slam matter together with energies some million billion times more powerful than any previously constructed accelerator in order to reveal directly that a string is not a point-particle, so discoveries in the foreseeable future depend upon mathematical formulae and the resulting deductions.
String theory so far claims that such strings are nature's most fundamental ingredient and that if the presumed point-particles composing electrons, quarks, protons, neutrons, positrons, photons, etc., could be examined with a precision significantly beyond our present capacity, each would be seen to be made of a single, tiny, oscillating loop of string. In physics, oscillation is to vary regularly between maximum and minimum values, as an electric current.
Brian Green has done a masterful job of explaining in layman's terms some of the most abstruse theoretical science currently being discussed and studied by some of the foremost high-energy physicists on the planet. |
|
|
Juan Gonzalez-Alvarez (MSL quote), Spain
<2007-02-09 00:00>
I read this book in two days, and my conception of nature did leave unchanged. The book is well written, but the historical outlines, the physics and the mathematics are shocking for readers with a solid scientific background. Moreover, string-M "theory" (SMT) is pure speculation - I doubt that it was a scientific hypothesis- without experimental support.
I find several "dishonest" claims. For instance, is there only one free parameter in the whole theory? Greene forgets the "vacuum degeneracy problem", i.e. the approximately 18 free parameters of the standard model have been replaced by 100 continuous plus at least 10000 (Calabi-Yau compactifications) discrete ones of current SMT. A little of "advanced" mathematics said that 10100 >> 18 > 1.
Greene is a little arrogant, because he assumes implicitly that a string physicist knows "more" and "best" than other scientists and mathematicians does. Then he declares repeatedly that only SMT is difficult, interesting, elegant and fundamental, but he does not provide scientific evidence for his own beliefs. Moreover, Greene closes his eyes to other Schools in quantum gravity as loop canonical theory. My opinion is that Greene?s aim may be publicizing SMT "at every price".
It is not true that the incompatibility between relativity and the quantum is the most important open problem of theoretical physics. Physicists know other two well-known incompatibilities -with significant future practical applications in chemistry or quantum computing, whereas the strings are only metaphysics - what are much more important: that of quantum mechanics with Newtonian theory (decoherence theory) and that of thermodynamics with dynamics (the so-called time "paradox").
The historical sketch by the author is archaic and/or incorrect in several points. E.g., Greene shows to Newton or Faraday as physicists, when both were chemists with some interest in physics. Around 1960's, the historians have showed how Newton discovered gravitation from his chemical investigations in affinity (chemical attraction). What is more, Faraday was a co-worker of the chemist H. Davy -his first scientific paper was "Analysis of Native Caustic Lime of Tuscany"-.
The error of interpretation of mc2 (see a previous review) is yet present in my version. "Advanced" mathematics said that mc2 = (mc)c. i.e. one multiply first m and c and then mc and c, not m and c two times neither m and 2c!
The discussion of classical physics by Greene is tolerable, but the presentation of the quantum mysteries is completely wrong. You must be not astonished! Greene is only a simple string theorist, not a specialist in quantum theory. He mixes negligently quantum "amplitudes" in the "position representation" with Dirac deltas in phase space. As can be easily demonstrated, his discussion of tunnel effects, trajectories and path integrals is incorrect in both physical and mathematical terms. A physicist said: "How can we hope a possible profound conception of nature from theorists with knowledge so unacceptable of the basic theories of physics?" In my opinion, we cannot hope it.
Unfortunately, the part devoted to SMT is plagued of arrogant claims about the "hard" mathematics used in his field, instead of presenting the basic principles of the "theory". I see much confusion here. People opines that string theory is difficult because there are approximate and/or unsolved equations in it. All science is plagued of that. In fact, in more than 100 years of the quantum, nobody has defined rigorously an atom of chemistry. Since pioneering work by Gibbs and Einstein in equilibrium problems, nobody had developed a useful and rigorous non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. There is no one mathematician in the world solving the N-representation problem of density matrices in quantum chemistry, etc.
Of course, some "topological" parts of SMT are hard, but in others parts the theory is only a straightforward linear-group-unitary quantum mechanics. I am sorry said this, but I have in my home a standard book in NMR chemistry with more general mathematics... I should cite the hierarchy of mathematical spaces used in spin dynamics: "S" => "L" => "H". Chemists working in NMR use the three spaces. Critical (bosonic) string theory in D=26 uses only the "H"-space.
In the recent conference "Quantum Future" some expertises have critiqued the fact of that SMT is "very traditional in the sense of the quantum theoretical formalism employed". This is true. In fact, I and others are working in a strong generalization of quantum formalism, because the axiomatic foundation of quantum mechanics is mathematically incompatible with structural chemistry! Of course, this is unknown in those "rigorous and highly glamorous" levels of SMT with "super-advanced mathematics". In general, I disagree with Gell-Mann ideas (see my review), but at least he is fine in one point: quarks (as strings, or the supergravitons, supermembranes, and M5-branes of the new M-theory) are simple, whereas atmospheric chemistry, neurology, Jaguars and others are complex items.
The final remarks by Greene about the future impact of SMT on quantum mechanical community are also socking for us. Let me cite a quote from a recognized leader in quantum measure theory (H.D. Zeh): "The suggestion that M-theory may eventually lead to a derivation of quantum theory (Witten 1997) seems to be based on a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics."
Conclusion: I recommended read it for a simple sketch of SMT - the book ignore much recent work as Matrix theory- and for seeing how a member of the team of string theorists perceives (very incorrectly!) our fascinating universe. This book was bestseller. I believe that the curiosity about SMT was the principal reason or perhaps people likes wrong historical outlines, pure speculation without experimental support, neglect of other Schools, arrogant metaphysical claims, incorrect presentations of basic theories, "archaic" mathematics, etc. I does not censure the possible scientific errors of Greene -seeing the majesty and complexity of our universe, I believes that I am an "ignorant"!. I, as others, disapprove the obvious arrogance of string theorists and their reject and/or ignorance of the rest of "traditional" science...
(A negative review. MSL remarks.)
|
|
|
George Johnson (New York Times Book Review) (MSL quote), USA
<2007-02-09 00:00>
Green goes beyond Kaku's book [Beyond Einstein], exploring the ideas and recent developments with a depth and clarity I wouldn't have thought possible. Like Simon Singh in Fermat's Enigma, he has a rare ability to explain even the most evanescent ideas in a way that gives at least the illusion of understanding... Rather than recycling the tired old set pieces science writers too often fall back upon, he develops one fresh new insight after another... In the great tradition of physicists writing for the masses, The Elegant Universe sets a standard that will be hard to beat. |
|
|
|
1 2 | Total 2 pages 14 items |
|
|
|
|
|
|
