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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re

Deep Utopia - Nick Bostrom ***

This is one of the strangest sort-of popular science (or philosophy, or something or other) books I've ever read. If you can picture the impact of a cross between Douglas Hofstadter's  Gödel Escher Bach and Gaileo's Two New Sciences  (at least, its conversational structure), then thrown in a touch of David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest , and you can get a feel for what the experience of reading it is like - bewildering with the feeling that there is something deep that you can never quite extract from it. Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom is probably best known in popular science for his book Superintelligence in which he looked at the implications of having artificial intelligence (AI) that goes beyond human capabilities. In a sense, Deep Utopia is a sequel, picking out one aspect of this speculation: what life would be like for us if technology had solved all our existential problems, while (in the form of superintelligence) it had also taken away much of our appare