A Brazilian citzen.
I find it strange and scary finding the word "God" when reading a scientific text. Somehow, every time a scientist says "God", they acknowledge its existence, in some basic cognitive level that is socially shared. Theists need no more arguments to force creationism into schools, nor to convert religion-based opinions and preferences into law. I am not glad I read this book.
This book is a must read if you are interested in the subject matter. The only issue I had with the book, and it is the same with any book that deals with theoretical physics and cosmology, is that a knowledgeable reader can get frustrated by some of the information that is dated (published in 2007). Some theories in this book have been either proven or disproven for instance. It is amazing how quickly books of this genre get dated.
A great book on Science, theories of Physics and its different approaches. Not an easy on indeed a book I would not recommend to anyone that has no background and a special interest in Quantum physics and Astronomy.
The concepts brought are well stated but not so easy to understand.
You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit me.” ― C.S. Lewis
As good as the slighly longer version. I like the narrator. As a non scientist the book still reads well. Worth reading.
The book takes some very technical ideas and brings them down to a normal level using simple examples that we can follow. I listened to this in the car with my kids and my 5th grader was able to follow many of the discussions and grasp the content
An avid reader, who also loves to listen.
A good book and it discusses some very interesting topics but it's deep and there are parts that are pretty difficult to follow. That aside, the beginning and ending of this book was great but I do have one complaint: for a book like this, it may have been more helpful if the glossary was at the beinning of the book instead of at the very end.
For the most part I believe, from my lesser understanding of the subject matter, that Hawking has presented much of the scientific material fairly and quite well. However, when he strays off his field of excellence he betrays a bias, in this case the old clich? of the Catholic Church suppressing science. I will not address those arguments again here but suffice it to say that Hawking knows which side of the argument he is on and he is leading somewhere with it, as his "who needs God?" conclusion demonstrates.
As each opportunity to imply that the Church squashed free scientific enquiry presented itself (and was taken) I began to expect Hawking to omit the name of the person whose theory the Big-Bang was. This would have been particularly odd as Hawking had scrupulously acknowledged everything else. To not accredit a theory as core to his text as the Big-Bang would surely be unthinkable. And yet he did.
You see in the midst of all his "objective" writings and scrupulous acknowledgement of who came up with what Stephen Hawking omits to mention that the Big Bang theory was proposed in 1927 by a Belgian priest named Georges Lemaitre. His theory was not initially well received by such lumiaries as Einstein himself, who said "Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable." Six year's later Einstein effectively retracted that sentiment after listening to a Lemaitre presentation and said "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened." Meanwhile many in the scientific community still objected to the notion of a moment of creation.
To me this is interesting history and Hawking's conspicuous failure to accredit this theory or mention Einstein's reaction to it demonstrates a failure of objectivity that makes one question whether he would show the same bias towards pet theories in his science.