Would have been better with more history, less hyperdimensional physics
933454
I wouldn't characterize myself as a 'fan' of Hoagland's, but I do feel that he has been a leading proponent for the exploration of Mars and the public release of data and images gathered there over the past 30 or so years.  I read his first book on Cydonia not long after it came out ('back in the day', as it were), and I was intrigued by his theories.  The math and geometry were fairly difficult to embrace, even back then.  Things have gotten little easier to digest with his emphasis on the hyperdimensional physics theory.  I would have to say that he 'lost' me years ago when he started promoting this theory, but I still find his investigation and analysis of Mars images to be fairly interesting.

I do not write him off as a crank, I just think readers should be aware that the first several chapters deal more with his history of investigating Mars and establishing his physics theory, than with any real history of NASA, per se.

When he DOES focus on NASA, and the ins and outs of who has led the agency, how it was created, and how closely it has been connected to the military/intelligence apparatus in this country (a fact that most people, like me, were probably unaware of)...well, it turns out to be a very interesting read at that point.

I'm not sure if I buy into his occult connection theory, either, but he DOES do a good job of explaining the connections, the seemingly 'ritual' dates that tend to come up repeatedly throughout the history of NASA.  I liked that, even though he pointed out the affiliation of several astronauts as Masons, he also admitted that during that time, male fraternal organizations were seen as a way of 'getting ahead' or securing your role with employers and leaders.

Like others, I'm sure, I found myself wishing that the images and diagrams had been placed in the context of the narrative, instead of lumped together at the end of each chapter.

At the end of the day, I don't know that I believe in alien ruins on the moon, Mars, or anywhere else, but I am still, at the very least, receptive to the idea that it's not impossible.  I enjoyed the book, though, I only wish it had contained more historical information about the agency.  Definitely, the first few chapters (especially the physics one) are almost a chore to get through.  If you can persevere through those, the rest of the book is pretty good.
3604752
Based on the whimsical title FAITH, FASHION, AND FANTASY (the title is embellished with whimsical fonts as well!) I thought this would be one of those engrossing popular physics books written to get the public excited about the newest thinking in physics, which seeks to meld Einsteins Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics and with the biological aspects of human consciousness.

Roger Penrose is renowned for doing that. Born in 1931, he has lived on the cutting edge of physics, cosmology, and brain function from the 1950s to the present. I had encountered his work as portrayed by authors of popular physics books, and wanted to read his theories explained in his own words.

I expected him to provide speculative insights into the question that the more rambunctious quantum mechanics gurus are asking: Did the material universe create consciousness, or did consciousness create the material universe? Penrose has related quantum mechanics to human consciousness:

===
It is a striking fact that almost all the interpretations of quantum mechanics  depend to some degree on the presence of consciousness for providing the observer that is required for  the emergence of a classical-like world. Roger Penrose
===

He has  coauthored the Penrose-Hameroff theory that the human brain is a quantum machine:

===
The three bases of the Penrose-Hameroff theorynoncomputability, the involvement of quantum gravity, and the role of tubulins [proteins inside the neurons of the brain] are each controversial. And the entire theory has been derided as having the explanatory power of pixie dust in the synapses.

Rosenblum, Bruce; Kuttner, Fred. Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness (p. 249). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
===

Based on what Id read about Penrose, I expected a great read, mixing the latest knowledge of physics and the cosmos with a little of that pixie dust that theoretical physicists can make so entertaining when they let their hair down and start talking to lay readers.

However, the book is all hard-core, no-holds-barred physics. Ive studied quantum mechanics as a layperson for more than 40 years. Even so, I found it a difficult read. There is no explanation of new theories or physics, such as  Twistor theory as an alternative to strings. Penrose doesnt explain what Twistor theory is, so if you're not familiar with it, you'll have to research it for yourself.

The book did make me appreciate how deeply insightful our physicists are in discerning the fundamental workings of the Universe. Penrose shows how they have been able to mathematically model the Universe from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest mega-structures, although controversies remain in melding Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, and human consciousness.

Penrose also makes the point that we may be on the verge of resolving these controversies and acquiring a new level of fundamental knowledge about the Universe --- and the part our consciousness plays in shaping it --- that will be as earth-shaking as the previous great discoveries by Newton, Einstein, and the Quantum Mechanics physicists.

Just be aware that this book is a professional physics exposition, not entertainment for laypersons. To glean the most from the book, you need to be a professional physicist already familiar with Penroses work.

For lay readers, perhaps a more suitable as introduction to Penroses subject matter can be found in QUANTUM ENIGMA: PHYSICS ENCOUNTERS CONSCIOUSNESS  (by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner) summarizes Penroses theories in a few pages. It is a one-stop guide to current thinking on quantum mechanics written specifically for comprehension by laypersons.
59506
I liked the book, but a chance discovery of new physics as core to story is hard to swallow. At least there are no vampires or unexplained magic! Fun but I likely won't remember it like i do Revelation Space or the Sparrow.
4914912
If your interest is astrophysics and cosmology, you might find this book more stimulating than I did.  Given that the authors interest is loop quantum gravity, it is understandable that he might focus on cosmology.
(See Quantum Bounce, Stuart Clark, New Scientist 2 January 2016, pp. 32-35, for a discussion of Rovellis work in loop quantum gravity).

However, I have three issues with the author:

On p. 14, he writes: In 1925 the equations of the theory [quantum theory] finally appeared, replacing the entire mechanics of Newton.

Newtons laws of motion have been replaced? News to me (and to NASA and the ESA).

On p. 37, he writes Two theories [general relativity and quantum theory], profligate in their gifts, which are fundamental to todays technology and have transformed the way we live. [sic]

He remarks that he is writing on a computer that quantum theory made possible, but where is the comparable contributionother than marginally, the GPSof general relativity?

In fact, some sources maintain that twenty-five per cent of the worlds GDP originates from quantum mechanics.

How can anyone maintain that general relativity has transformed the way we live?

See ScienceHeroes.com and Scientists Greater Than Einstein by Amy Pearce to learn about scientists who
have really changed the world. The 105 scientists on the website have saved 5,304,828,486 lives, and  counting.

Astrophysics and cosmology are not the queens of science.  Far from it.

Finally, isn't it about time we give up hagiographic references to Einstein?
He was a great physicist, but he relied on the work of a great many other physicists in developing his theories.

For example, on p. 2 the author refers to his [Einsteins] first theory of relativity [the theory of special relativity]. A great many people developed the theory of special relativity.  In fact, as Jeremy Gray writes in HENRI POINCARE, A Scientific Biography (Princeton, 2013), Poincare undoubtedly discovered many of the ideas that now form our mental picture of the theory of special relativity and associate with the name of Einstein (p. 368).

Its time to put Einsteins achievements in the context in which they were completed: the culmination of the work of a lot of other scientists.
2062412
I have been dreading this review for a few days now.
Good stuff first.
I learned an aweful lot about quantum physics and in particular particle physics in this book.  Many of the mysteries about what happens in those huge particle accelerators are revealed, and many of the theories which they support and spawn are truly amazing.  For example, do you know what two particles are release when a proton and an anti proton colide? (the answer is two photons)  Did you know if you turn a graphic displaying this reaction on its side it implies that a photon and a proton can generate a photon and an antiproton?  Pretty cool stuff.
I was also quite pleased to really understand the distinction between Special and General relativity; thanks Al.  Furthermore, I was amazed to learn that Bohr was possibly the actual founder of quantum physics way back in 1900 I think (and I just thought he was that guy that made that electron shells model of the atom.)
Unfortunately, there is lots of bad stuff.
Some of the charts are absolutely unintelligible, and at times it seems the text meant to describe those charts may actually be referring to a different book entirely.  Not good.
There are some huge leaps of logic, especially near the end where he discusses Bell's theorem.  One in particular left me livid.  We are told to believe all things are connected (non-locality of space) based on an experiment that the author never says has been verified.  Another explanation is mentioned but cast off, particles moving at superluminal velocities.
And finaly, the frequent injection of, "just like Eastern philosophy has been saying for a gazillion years" is just plain annoying.  Zen can be a useful for understanding what cognition and perception are, but as a tool for understanding subatomic physics it is just plain ridiculous.  "Our world is what we percieve it to be," is fine when you are talking about the mind, but falling back on it to explain away the wave-particle duality of light is a cop out.  The answers may be "inside the watch case we can never open" as Einstein said, but those answers are there.  A light wave does not "choose" to go through one slot or the other because I saw it do it.
The most important statement in the book is in a footnote.  Paraphrased it says, "The current state of sub-atomic physics is analogous to the Ptolomeaic (spelling?) world of Astronomy before Copernicus."  It seems likely to me that the subatomic equivalent of "the earth is not the center of the universe" could take these bizzare particle behaviors we see and make perfect sense of them.
If our answers are bewildering, it can only mean that our premise, and therefore our questions, are the ones that are flawed.
4495562
I saw the title and was interested in the connection between quantum physics and weight. It turns out, despite the best attempts of the author, that there isn't any.

The first section of the book is an attempt to build a foundation on principles from physics. Classical physics leads to bad results, such as treating our body like a machine. This is fair enough: we are more than mere machines, and simplistic diets which assume so are likely to fail. Then he discusses a few results from quantum physics, and generalizes them to a philosophy of everything. He displays his lack of understanding of quantum physics, and in particular the scale on which it applies.

For instance, the observation of something does actually affect the thing being observed. You cannot examine the state of an electron in an atom without affecting that state - after the observation it may very well have more or less energy than before, and before the observation, the state cannot be determined. But the same idea does not apply in the same way to the table in my living room. Whether I look at it or not does not change the fact that it is sitting there in my living room. The most I could affect it is if I turn on the lights to check, and in the process increase its temperature some tiny bit, or run into it in the dark and shift it a short distance. But the table is really there - that much is not in question. It is certainly not true that "Your internal energy creates the material world outside of you" or "The material world does not pre-exist, awaiting your observation; you create the material world, through your observation, on a moment-by-moment basis."

The second section of the book actually gets around to how his philosophy applies to weight. He does not give any particular diet, but rather a mindset. The words diet and exercise contain bad connotations, and the fundamental trick is to feel good about them. If you think properly about eating and moving, following a few rules and tools that he gives, then you will fairly naturally be able to achieve and maintain a satisfactory weight. Whether these ideas work or not, I can't say, since I haven't tried them. I read the book out of curiosity about quantum physics rather than a way to lose a few extra pounds. My guess is that they could be helpful to some degree - thus two stars instead of one.

Another aspect of his system is being able to tell yourself stories, and giving yourself the freedom to tell the most positive and meaningful story about a situation. There is some value to this, even though the way he gets there is by trying to destroy the idea that there is true and false or good and bad. This sort of subjectivity collapses under its own weight, but there are other ways to support looking for positive aspects to even bad events and situations. And it is true that our attitudes have a huge influence on us, particularly when it comes to something like our weight, which is a combined result of our eating, activity, and overall health.

Nearing the end, he shows genuine confusion of contradictory religions, philosophies and his idea of quantum physics: "Call this energy what you will - God, your spirit, the universe, Brahman, source energy, Allah, Yahweh, the quantum field, etc. - the real 'you' is non-physical, and that is becoming more difficult to deny." These are not all the same. Names, identities and ideas really do matter. You cannot mix them all together and pretend they are identical. Science matters too, and is worth more than just as a springboard for philosophy.

I picked up the book while it was free. I don't recommend it unless you enjoy sifting through various philosophies to pick out which ones are worth keeping.
3796081
This book, starts out as a pretty dry read concerning the physics of time travel.  This is alright, since the concept is pretty deep, but is better covered by a physicist like Paul Davies, in his book "About Time".  The science part reads like a college term paper rather than an interesting portrayal of the science.  Then again, we're not buying it to learn about Einstein, are we?  No, we want to see about time travel!
Once past the science stuff, we begin to see what 'paranormal' or unexplained events may indicate time travellers.  U.F.O.'s is a common theme here, although I'm surprised Childress, who does seem to discuss everything, didn't talk about people purportedly appearing from nowhere.  These cases are well documented, and certainly related to the idea of 'time travel'.  That aside, he displays some nice photographic and illustrated documentation of U.F.O.'s, starting with the late 19th century.  This continues, including Rastafarian Time Travellers.  It goes on into the Philidelphia Experiment and how it may relate to time travel.  Then, into some people's unfounded claims of either a.) being a time traveller b.) channeling time travellers c.) finding time capsules supposedly left by time travellers, etc.  The section on 'Seth' (of 'Seth Speaks' fame) was particularly painful, nearly equal to the lengthy babblings concerning the 'Wingmakers', (look it up on the internet).  Later, the book goes into some patents, and ends up with an excellent re-iteration of an actual, verified teleportation performed in California-perhaps the only truly verifiable evidence in this book.
Aside from these difficulties, it really has quite a few photographs and drawings of time machines, either patent ideas or left by 'time travellers'.  A few amusing cartoons are included, and it does go into depth (as much as is possible) to speculation of actual work on space-time related projects.  Fun to read?  Read Well's 'Time Machine' for that (which I was surprised and disappointed Childress did not find some connection to allow him to speculate Wells was writing from first-hand experience).  It is a nice collection of the 'time travel' theories, ideas, and purported events in existence to the public today, and for that it is worth a purchase.
3104836
This book gives a nice account of the history of the various attempts to solve the Poincare conjecture, culminating with its recent proof by Perelman.  Compared to the book by O'Shea, the history here seems more interesting and relevant.  (Although here too the history is occasionally rambling and boring, at least we aren't subjected to a treatise on the rise of the German university system in the 19th century etc.)  We get to meet lots of colorful characters and read many interesting stories about them.  The author did an excellent job of interviewing all available people.  The human side of mathematical research is very well presented here.

As for the math, although nice analogies are used to describe abstract concepts to the layman, the details are often garbled.  Some of the basic mathematical statements made in the book are blatantly wrong.  For example, the book states that the Poincare homology 3-sphere is the only homology 3-sphere other than the 3-sphere.  (In fact, there are infinitely many different homology 3-spheres, and these comprise an intricate structure which is still being explored in present-day research.)  We also learn in this book that the fundamental group of a genus 2 surface is Z^3, and the fundamental group of a genus 3 surface is Z^4.  (Any student in an undergraduate topology class should know better.)  The list goes on.  I suppose that a layperson won't notice these mistakes, and will at least get an idea of what the math is like, modulo details.  However there are other mathematical statements which, while not quite wrong, don't make any sense without more explanation.  (Oh, and he keeps referring to three-dimensional manifolds as "floating in four-dimensional space", which really muddies the waters.)  The description of Ricci flow at the end is quite a bit better than the math in the rest of the book;  the acknowledgments indicate that the help of Christina Sormani played a big role here.

The most glaring omission in the book is the pictures.  There aren't any.  That's right, 300 pages of geometry without a single picture.  Granted, professional mathematicians often write research articles in geometry with no pictures, only equations.  But there the intended audience has enough knowledge to see the pictures in their mind.  For a popular book on geometry to have no pictures is really disappointing.  Maybe they were in a rush to get into print.

Conclusion: if you are a layperson who would like to learn about the Poincare conjecture, O'Shea's book is good for the math (which, while difficult to understand at times, is at least correct) and this book is good for the history.
2047425
I bought this book because I found compelling to step up my knowledge of the universe, the Earth, their relationship and how all of this reflects on as humans and living beings. However, when I finished the book it felt like a relief, a chip off my shoulder. The reason being, this book can be surprisingly engrossing at times but for most of the time is a sheer listing of data, numbers, theories and mere experiments that haven't even received much attention in the course of human history due to their unsuccessful outcomes. Now, If the author's goal was to present the most updated, detailed and broad version of human history interwoven with spells of cosmology, astronomy and so forth maybe I should have simply picked a single book for each of those topics and I would have achieved a better understanding of the matters covered in this all-in book.
I also reckon that science must be taught by scientists and it is bitterly disappointing to see that some of the most delicate issues in science have been unfolded such that the reader can only grasp matter-of-fact descriptions of ground-breaking theories with very little insights about their actual meaning in the contest.
The narrative style isn't despicable and I admire the author for his huge effort in researching and for embarking on a real writing feat but I think that no one can fit crucial questions - such as how did the universe come to be? where does the earth come from? How did life occur on Earth? - in a single book, much less someone who hasn't pursued these questions in his working background but just happened to turn his attention to them.
In brief, devoting time and efforts to a daunting research on fundamental scientific questions won't bring you any closer to the knowledge of those who dedicated their lives to unravel their answers. On the contrary, this book may well be found confusing to the general reader and devoid of a specific topic but embracing all at once.
3648992
The author sets out to explain the comparisons between modern quantum physics and the theological understanding of the nature of "God" in their mutual interest in seeking the "truth".  For me, the book just missed the mark.  The comparisons are nebulous and there seems little that each discipline has in common with the other.  Science enjoys the advantage of measurement and experiment  in the ability to put matter to the test of scrutiny.  This, indeed, is a remarkable human capacity for scientific success and discovery.  However, science use of measurement, as its chief tool, offers no solution to the abstract and subjective areas to such questions as, Is there a God,? and, Who are we and why are we here?  Theology explores and analyses the development of Christian thinking over the centuries.  This represents serious intellectual effort but remains a subjective analysis.  In closing, it seems that both science and theology are severely limited in their "truth" seeking capacities in that only partial truths can be garnered from their investigations.  We often look to the mystic for our answers but without our own "Experience", the answer to these important questions remain forever elusive.
2421222
I read this book because I am very interested in books that examine the scientific evidence for God's existence.  While Dr. Aczel did make some good points, I felt this book could have been much, much better than it was.  He did make a number of valid points, such as the finely-tuned nature of the universe; how science has not yet provided a satisfactory explanation for how we came to have consciousness and the ability to use symbolic language; and the limits of mathematics in understanding the nature of infinity.  Dr. Aczel also includes a chapter discussing how archaeological evidence does not disprove the Bible, and even shows it to be a historically reliable document.

However, I found this book to be a bit disjointed, with Dr. Aczel jumping from one topic to another.  Also, readers should be aware that Dr. Aczel firmly comes down on the side of theistic evolution rather than the Biblical view of a Creator God who created each individual species, and who is still actively involved in sustaining the universe.  And even in his chapter on archaeology and the Bible, Dr. Aczel dismisses the miraculous events of the Bible; for those who hold historic Christian beliefs, this would be problematic, since the central teachings of the New Testament involve Jesus' resurrection from the dead.  Even historic Judaism teaches that God intervened supernaturally on behalf of the Israelites during the Exodus from Egypt.

If you're interested in reading more about the scientific evidence that does point toward God's existence, I highly recommend Lee Strobel's book, The Case for a Creator, which I found to be far more readable and jam-packed with solid information about recent scientific discoveries that all point to God's existence and his creation of the universe.
2866344
Well, i really wanted to like this book because i am interested in quantum physics and metaphysics and would love to buy into many of the "revelations" Levy presents. A friend recommended this title to me, saying it had helped her (a layman like me) understand quantum mechanics. Unfortunately in my case, that was not the intent or the thrust of the book. Relatively early on, the author discusses the famous double-slit experiment, but doesn't spend nearly enough time on it. The book focuses on the author's view of the many implications quantum physics has for our understanding of reality, but he doesn't (after that first brief discussion) present any of the actual scientific findings that led him to these conclusions. I kept hoping they would show up, but they didn't. So, again unfortunately, the revelations, exciting as they may be, ring hollow without this support.
3496769
This book surveys what is going on with "big data" about the natural history of concepts within social groups, and what developments are on the horizon in terms of computationally assisted & analyzed human behavior, as researched at the Media Lab at MIT.  There is a lot of very interesting work being done, but the descriptions are so shallow that you're not going to learn as much as you might hope about it.  Instead of looking at individual behavior in various situations, it looks at massive groups of individuals (though the use of specialized sensors or smartphone data, for example) and analyzes interactions and flow of information through individual "nodes". For example, they analyzed how the interactions among people change when they get sick, and suggests using this to create an app that would notice behavioral changes and predict that people may be getting sick.

Some really great science books take the reader through the process of research, the mis-steps taken, the triumphs, and turn the process of progress in science into something almost resembling a mystery to be solved, producing a fascinating account of what the scientist did and thought and concluded.  However, this is not one of those compelling books.  Here,  the author is constantly mentioning that he did something, but not in an illuminating way.  The description of this fascinating body of work, performed by a number of researchers, feels choppy, like it was churned out in bit and pieces

The topic itself is worth five stars, but for me the presentation is worth three stars because it is so vague and general (hence my averaged rating of four stars). The biggest problem was that, while the descriptions of the individual experiments or studies are interesting, the accounts of what was learned are lacking detail.  The final chapter is a bit more specific, presenting various principles which have been discovered, yet still shallowly described. if you are looking for rigorous physical descriptions and mathematical analysis, you'll be disappointed (though the details appendix 4 will help somewhat).

However, it is an easy read, and a way to become informed about forthcoming innovations to expect.
1684274
The author does an admirable job with an english description of many advanced physics ideas, particularily in the first few chapters.  It was an entertaining read for as much of it as I attempted.

After about five chapters, I found that it was hard to follow things in this completely non-mathematical text.  I found myself wanting for the real thing instead of a description aimed at the layman.  This may be an interesting book to attempt to re-read later once I've got some additional physics education under my belt.
472102
This book is a daunting exposition of physics from the time of Issac Newton to the present. But it mainly focuses on Quantum Physics and Relativity, with many side trips into many of the different aspects of modern physics, and to a lesser extent mathematics. Though Philosophy and fiction play parts in this book as well, physics is the central attraction. While deep understanding of Quantum mechanics, Einstein's theories of Relativity, Gravity, Astrophysics, String Theory, Black Holes, and other aspects of modern physics are not essential, At least some understanding and interest in them are useful for following along and not being put off by the flow of the book.

Time One explores many areas of modern physics from the point of view of a Hacker who is hired to find a new theory of the Universe's beginning point. Initially the hacker is supposed to do research for a supposed Private Investigator (PI). But this PI turns out to be not really interested and is really working for the hacker's lady boss to do other tasks. The hacker's work is really a front for a scam run by the lady boss.

The hacker takes the job seriously because it's the kind of work that he really loves. After it becomes apparent that The PI hired by the woman is not really interested in finding the Universe's beginning, the hacker is not sure how to find a new model for the universe. He mentions more then once fictional detectives such as Sherlock Holmes, and thinks that he also needs a fictional PI. Then part way into the book the hacker starts hearing the voice of a fictional PI. Together with the hacker, the fictional PI create a new model of the beginning of the universe.

My own opinion of this model of the universe is that it may well be reasonable. But I'm not really qualified to understand this new model, so I withhold judgement, though I think it makes a kind of sense from what little I do understand.

I am a bit disappointed in  the treatment of the fictional detective. The hacker's assumption that the voice he hears is from his own mind feels wrong to me. The disembodied voice of the PI comes from a deeper place, an unconscious part of the universe that speaks to the hacker. It knows so much that the hacker does not and is using the hacker to put forth it's own views of physics and it's new version of reality. I'm tempted to use words such as spirit and soul, but they would not be helpful. Better to let this disembodied entity remain a mystery.

Finally, I would like to say that I had to read this book slowly since so much material was presented as if this were a physics text book. Indeed I stopped after reading the first two parts and re read from the beginning to get a better grasp on the material. I've long been fascinated with physics but I needed slow and careful reading to catch the ideas being presented. As I say at the beginning, this book is not for the beginner in physics. Indeed it requires an interest in physics as well as a sense of interest in seeing physics reshaped into an interesting new form.

I've finished the book, but still am processing the material. I was hoping to find more viewpoints about the book here in the reviews, but finding only two, I am adding my two cents as well.
3490007
This volume, translated from the Italian, is yet another popular introduction to one or more aspects of modern physics by a practicing physicists, in this case quantum gravity theoretician Carlo Rovelli. The aim is to get across to the layman the main aspects of Rovelli's specialty by way of a quick trip from the ancient Greek atomists through Galileo, Faraday and Maxwell then relativity and quantum mechanics. For at least the first half of the journey, there's not a lot new here for the usual reader of such books; indeed, I think the book lacks a good deal in the way of clarifying examples, though the broad philosophical sketch Rovelli provides is quite astute, and he does bring into the spotlight  neglected figures such Matvei Bronstein, whose speculations were ahead of their time. However, if you're looking for a good introduction to modern physics, go elsewhere. Rovelli's treatment is, as I suggested a moment ago, incomplete, sometimes in an irritating way. For example, here is a footnote from the book: "The quantum number of the photon's states in Fock space is the momentum, Fourier transform of position." That's fine by itself, but Rovelli never defines Fock space and doesn't introduce the concept of Fourier transform at all to the reader. When we get to quantum gravity itself at the end of the book, Rovelli does a decent job in explaining basic concepts, though I suspect that someone totally unacquainted with quantum concepts will remain somewhat lost. Also annoying is Rovelli's tendency to mix in present tense in relating history: he will write things like (and I'm making this quote up, but it gets the point across) "Then Albert decides to think about this in a different way." The use of present tense just doesn't work, and when the author switches back and forth between it and past tense, it makes for an annoying read. And, to cap it off, Rovelli more than once speaks directly to us with the term "dear reader." Well, maybe something was lost in translation. In any case, as I said, those seeking an introduction to modern physics should go elsewhere. Those a bit familiar with the general subject will find the last few chapters on quantum gravity illuminating in a general sense.
3811828
Way back in 1995 I read a fascinating book by Paul Davies called `About Time'. What makes the topic of time so interesting is that most people believe that they intuitively understand time and yet our perception and reality can be at odds. Unlike most things in nature science cannot stand outside of time and study it. We also have a very limited understanding of time based on that fact that we have no personal experiences with the very fast, the very distant and the very massive. This is why from our perspective Newtonian physics, which fundamentally misinterprets time, works perfectly fine in everyday life. My expectation for the book was to read more about the science of time possibly updated with research done within the past decade and a half. I don't think my expectation was unreasonable given the subtitle of the book, `The SCIENCE of a curious DIMENSION'. Note the prominence of the word `science'. To say I was disappointed would be a great understatement.

The first half of the book is about the history of timekeeping going back thousands of years. It's mildly interesting but certainly not why I purchased the book. About halfway through we finally get to Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the book briefly became intriguing although it never expands on ideas I've already read in many other books. In fact the second half of the book was sort of a primer on modern physics in general with the author touching on the big bang, black holes, dark matter, the smoothness of background radiation, grand unified theory, string theory (including m-branes), paradoxes of time travel and so on and so forth. What he doesn't do is ever delve into any one topic long enough to do anything more than scratch the surface. Quite frankly this book could have been written by a layman like me and why would I want to read a book I could have written. You can argue that the aforementioned topics are all related to time but you can also argue that paint drying is related to time but I don't want to read a book about drying paint.

In the end this book appears to be little more than a beginner's physics book along with some history of keeping time. For me it ended up being a waste of time (how ironic) and quite frankly was a chore to get through. Paul Davies' book delved far far deeper into the physics of time and was much more fascinating and better written. The author even refers back to Paul Davies book several times and inspired me to reread it. After just a few pages I could immediately recognize it as a far superior book. `In Search of Time' might be interesting to someone who hasn't spent much or any time reading popular science books but if you really want to get into the subject go with Davies.