...
Show More
All I can really tell you with certainty is 'A Brief History of Time' is very logically organized, but as each chapter described a series of linked discoveries and what it all meant, unfortunately it mostly was still opaque to me.
Topics are introduced logically as Stephen Hawking describes in plain English the discoveries of scientists. He usually begins with observable phenomena which have led to verified maths (not actually detailed) demonstrating very likely how the Universe, and presumably Time with it, came into existence. Hawking does not detail the math in 'A Brief History of Time', but he tries to explain the significance of the observations.
The Universe operates in a manner which can be predicted once the math formulas are sussed out from the objects being observed, or at least the side effect of an unseen act can be observed. Each discovery builds on older discoveries, which leads to more knowledge.
I can tell I grasped only the surface of how each discovery led to a more holistic understanding of many separate ideas from many separate pieces. I do understand the bare bones of Hawking’s description of an experiment or observation, and I see vaguely how scientists have ultimately fitted it into the narrative of astrophysics.
To me, it seems like each scientist was figuratively designing a personal knitted pattern for an afghan square (observation, experiment and math), which is ultimately tried on to fit into a larger, but incomplete, afghan of many other formerly disparate squares, placing it where to the scientists' best judgement the square seems to work out (or sometimes not, and sometimes the mismatched piece has to be unraveled and redesigned, or moved elsewhere). But I have difficulty in understanding some of the individual designs of the pieces, and I don't know sometimes why scientists have decided this piece must fit there in that location; however, I understand the ultimate description of conclusions reached which have been the result from the fit of the pieces.
I can see Astronomy is where everything learned since the Ancient Greeks, but especially from the discoveries of Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, has been like adding cars to a train engine, delivering more and more understanding about the size of the universe, its age, its chemistry and its elements, and how stars and galaxies came into being from a variety of small elemental particles responding to forces; all of which shockingly behave in a manner which can be mathematically described and reproduced.
Sadly, I understood only half of the book despite reading it cover to cover and studying the included illustrations, and referring again and again to the included glossary and index in back. Kidding!
No, not. Actually I'm not kidding. Reading this did not cause my brain to fizz, or jizz. (Give me a break gentlemen readers and other Goodreads reviewers! This book gave some of you guys the same mental thrills of, quote, “hard ons”!?!? Really. REALLY? And here I am, my brain being juiced into images of knitting afghan squares! I missed something huge in my understanding, for sure.)
Instead, for me, thinking about the material was like being in a state of inebriation and working hard to connect sentences into a coherent communication, but it was worth the read somewhat as it filled in some blanks far more clearly than I have seen before!
Hawking has a gentle humor throughout, especially in including God's absence after the winding of clocks and universes. But I think without having taken significant science and math studies in high school, or better yet, in college, this book is not simple or complete enough. It is sort of a partial introduction to astronomy, and it discusses a few physics concepts - the bits that lead to a discussion of gravity, the Big Bang, black holes, dimensions, time travel, wormholes, the 'arrow of time' which is also about boundaries and the shape of the Universe (I got lost in the theoretical concept of a round surface of a ball shaping the direction of Time like the moon orbiting the earth) and unifying the two major sciences of physics (classical and quantum) through string theories - so the book often was over my head in describing astrophysic concepts and discoveries. I know I could not pick out which concepts are supposed to be describing actual physical shapes or processes from otherwise imaginary thought concepts but impossible to reproduce in physical form. For example, the discussion on Time - Time is not something any human can see, so I don't get the Time arrow discussion in the book hardly at all. Time is possibly some kind of force going in a circle, maybe, or maybe not, depending on what is ultimately the Universe's 'boundary'? Frankly, I was completely lost in this chapter!
I estimate I understood 70 pages out of 200, gentle reader.
Topics are introduced logically as Stephen Hawking describes in plain English the discoveries of scientists. He usually begins with observable phenomena which have led to verified maths (not actually detailed) demonstrating very likely how the Universe, and presumably Time with it, came into existence. Hawking does not detail the math in 'A Brief History of Time', but he tries to explain the significance of the observations.
The Universe operates in a manner which can be predicted once the math formulas are sussed out from the objects being observed, or at least the side effect of an unseen act can be observed. Each discovery builds on older discoveries, which leads to more knowledge.
I can tell I grasped only the surface of how each discovery led to a more holistic understanding of many separate ideas from many separate pieces. I do understand the bare bones of Hawking’s description of an experiment or observation, and I see vaguely how scientists have ultimately fitted it into the narrative of astrophysics.
To me, it seems like each scientist was figuratively designing a personal knitted pattern for an afghan square (observation, experiment and math), which is ultimately tried on to fit into a larger, but incomplete, afghan of many other formerly disparate squares, placing it where to the scientists' best judgement the square seems to work out (or sometimes not, and sometimes the mismatched piece has to be unraveled and redesigned, or moved elsewhere). But I have difficulty in understanding some of the individual designs of the pieces, and I don't know sometimes why scientists have decided this piece must fit there in that location; however, I understand the ultimate description of conclusions reached which have been the result from the fit of the pieces.
I can see Astronomy is where everything learned since the Ancient Greeks, but especially from the discoveries of Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, has been like adding cars to a train engine, delivering more and more understanding about the size of the universe, its age, its chemistry and its elements, and how stars and galaxies came into being from a variety of small elemental particles responding to forces; all of which shockingly behave in a manner which can be mathematically described and reproduced.
Sadly, I understood only half of the book despite reading it cover to cover and studying the included illustrations, and referring again and again to the included glossary and index in back. Kidding!
No, not. Actually I'm not kidding. Reading this did not cause my brain to fizz, or jizz. (Give me a break gentlemen readers and other Goodreads reviewers! This book gave some of you guys the same mental thrills of, quote, “hard ons”!?!? Really. REALLY? And here I am, my brain being juiced into images of knitting afghan squares! I missed something huge in my understanding, for sure.)
Instead, for me, thinking about the material was like being in a state of inebriation and working hard to connect sentences into a coherent communication, but it was worth the read somewhat as it filled in some blanks far more clearly than I have seen before!
Hawking has a gentle humor throughout, especially in including God's absence after the winding of clocks and universes. But I think without having taken significant science and math studies in high school, or better yet, in college, this book is not simple or complete enough. It is sort of a partial introduction to astronomy, and it discusses a few physics concepts - the bits that lead to a discussion of gravity, the Big Bang, black holes, dimensions, time travel, wormholes, the 'arrow of time' which is also about boundaries and the shape of the Universe (I got lost in the theoretical concept of a round surface of a ball shaping the direction of Time like the moon orbiting the earth) and unifying the two major sciences of physics (classical and quantum) through string theories - so the book often was over my head in describing astrophysic concepts and discoveries. I know I could not pick out which concepts are supposed to be describing actual physical shapes or processes from otherwise imaginary thought concepts but impossible to reproduce in physical form. For example, the discussion on Time - Time is not something any human can see, so I don't get the Time arrow discussion in the book hardly at all. Time is possibly some kind of force going in a circle, maybe, or maybe not, depending on what is ultimately the Universe's 'boundary'? Frankly, I was completely lost in this chapter!
I estimate I understood 70 pages out of 200, gentle reader.
