Skip to main content

On the Origin of Time - Thomas Hertog ****

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time is that it says hardly anything about the nature of time. (The second most remarkable thing is how few of the people who bought it actually read it.) This book from Thomas Hertog, one of Hawking's former students, subtitled 'Stephen Hawking's final theory' very much follows the same line. Again it's far more about cosmology and black holes than it is about the nature of things temporal. And although I would say it's probably better written than the earlier book (and certainly far better than The Grand Design), this is a book that probably needs the reader to have a greater ability to take in technical details than A Brief History.

What I really like about this book is that it gives fascinating insights into the way that theoretical physics evolves. Hertog gives us an inside view of how Hawking and his colleagues worked - he is clearly in awe of Hawking to the point of hero-worship, but it remains enlightening. Things progress sometimes with major shifts of approach, sometimes by patching up flaws where an apparently beautiful theory doesn’t match reality. This was the case with the original big bang, and Hawking’s no boundary approach described here (where the universe begins without a beginning), which as originally formulated would have resulted in a universe bearing no resemblance to our own. Interestingly, Herzog doesn’t really explain why when Fred Hoyle did something similar for his steady state theory it was ignored - fashion makes a significant contribution to the success or otherwise of these kinds of highly speculative theories. 

In an attempt to get away from the idea of taking a 'god's eye' external view of the universe we are part of, we are told that Hawking et al developed a 'top down cosmology'. Here things start to feel very hand-waving - far more a matter of philosophy than physics. Herzog describes how they see the present influencing the past - but this feels very circular, along the lines of 'things are like they are now so we can ignore outcomes that don't lead to that, even if they seem very unlikely from the theory'… but it feels harder to justify the theory in the first place if this is the case. There are echoes too of Heinrich Päs' recent The One.

Broadly, there are two ways to write a popular science book about a complex theory. You can attempt to explain it as well as you can without the underlying mathematics, or you can not explain it at all, but just state what the theory does without looking under the hood. Each approach has its problems. The explanations of those trying to put forward a maths-based theory without equations inevitably fall short of what the theory is really about. And the 'never explain' approach, which is used by Hertog, can easily present as fact what is in reality highly speculative and quite likely impossible to prove through experiment or observation. Reading this book, for example, you would not suspect that string theory or the existence of dark matter particles were in any way contentious. 

Depending on your approach to such things, this is either fascinating, leading edge theoretical physics or something more akin to theology - ascientific rather than science in the traditional sense. You pays your money and you takes your choice. Personally, the 'science' leaves me cold, but the insider view of the way highly speculative theoretical physics was developed by Hawking and colleagues made this an unmissable read.
Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more