Skip to main content

The Hidden Reality – Brian Greene *****

I hugely enjoyed Brian Greene’s previous books, The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos, so when I saw this title had been released I was looking forward to reading it. In The Hidden Reality, Greene explores the various possibilities of there being parallel universes beyond our own. He takes us through, in all, nine conceptions of the multiverse that seem to emerge naturally from the mathematics behind some of our most successful physical theories. The book turns out to be an absolute delight.
We start with the fascinating idea that, if the universe is infinite in extent, this implies the existence of an infinite number of places in the universe where physical conditions are identical to those we find around us, and therefore an unending number of worlds in which ‘you’ and ‘I’ are going about their lives in exactly the same way as we are doing, here. Later in the book, we look at, among other things, the ‘braneworlds’ scenario that comes out of string theory, and the idea that we live in one universe among many in a computer simulated multiverse.
For each variation on the multiverse theme, Greene first brings us up to speed on the physics we need in order to make sense of the ideas to be looked at, bringing in discussions of quantum mechanics, relativity, string theory and thermodynamics where necessary. This background information is incredibly useful in its own right – Greene’s explanation of the difficulties of merging quantum mechanics and general relativity, for instance, is better than I have seen anywhere else. Whilst good across the board, the best chapter is the one on the ‘Many Worlds’ interpretation of quantum mechanics – the summary here would be ideal to read before going on to look at a more full exploration of the subject.
Greene clearly appreciates the difficulties the layperson is likely to have in coming to grips with the tricky concepts being introduced, and he knows how to take the absolute beginner along with him, and to bring them to a good level of understanding. His analogies always get across the main ideas well, and when things get tough, the reader is warned.
Many of the ideas here do seem highly speculative, and some will argue that, because they appear not to be falsifiable, this is not good science. Greene anticipates this reaction, however, and devotes a chapter to it. He outlines the experiments and observations that could, in fact, give us an indication as to whether any of these ideas are on the right track. He sensibly emphasises that we shouldn’t consider sound any theory that cannot be verified by observation or experiment, and, ultimately, he is convincing that the ideas discussed in the book are at least worth considering for the time being.
If you have read Greene’s previous books, there will be occasions where you may want to skip a section or two, where the discussions overlap a little with those covered in the previous books. But whatever background you to come to this book with, you’re likely to be very impressed with the presentation of the science and hugely intrigued by the ideas themselves. I have no hesitation in giving this book five stars, and can easily see it being among the best popular science books of 2011. Highly recommended.

Paperback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Matt Chorley
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more