There is no print version.
It's a lecture. This question is weird. Steven Pollock?
I've listened to his lecture on Classical Physics. This one is much better. I think this is his area of expertise, though. So that makes sense.
Intense interest and desire for more and more detail. This should have a second and third version.
I love Pollock's presentation style. I love that he carefully organized these lectures. And, I love that he helps me to feel like I have a thorough understanding of the work being done at large colliders (well, mostly just the LHC now).
I've listened to this twice. I intend to listen a third time. It's absolutely fascinating. I loved learning about Quantum Chromodynamics and Quantum Electrodynamics.
He gets very very technical and detailed. I got a lot out of each lecture.
I appreciated that he deconstructed this idea of the "laws of physics" being absolute. The second law of thermodynamics in particular.
Great lecturer. Has an engaging way of speaking and he prepared these lectures in a very accessible way.
Time is not what you think.
I said above that it's more about entropy than time. But, in the first lecture he points out that entropy is the best way to think about time. And he carries this through all the way to the end.
This was the most dense of the Great Courses Lectures I've listened to so far. Probably worth a second and third listen. You will get a lot out of it.
It sheds new and renewed light on high school science class. Goes into more detail. I loved learning more about Newton's upbringing and life.
I more enjoyed the ending when he begins to talk more about modern physics. But, that may have more to do with my personal preferences than a review of the lecture overall.
It's non-fiction. So, this question doesn't make sense. But, I enjoyed learning about conservation of momentum.
Learn the things you forgot to learn in high school science.
It's a good listen. I recommend it if you are interested in classical physics and Newton.
He gets into some very complicated physical ideas and challenges the reader (listener) to follow him. I listened to some sections a half-dozen times to really understand the entirety of the point he was making. It wasn't because it was poorly explained. But, it is quite challenging material. He really delivers it well.
I don't have a good comparison for this one. It's a bit different than others I've come across. More technical and more theoretical.
Seeing as it is non-fiction, this is a weird question to ask me. Max Tegmark?
Absolutely not. My head often hurt after 30 minutes. Pace yourself. You'll get more out of it.
The last quarter of the book seemed like it was written to other physicists. It was a more radical theoretical interpretation of the multiverse(s) and he does a lot of defending his point preemptively. It was still interesting, but was qualitatively different than the first 3/4.
He doesn't shy away from asking you to understand very difficult concepts. This adds incredible depth to the lecture. You can listen to it over and over again still gaining new understanding. That's well worth the cost.
He hammers home that the earth is not special. This is both obvious and not. I felt he deconstructed the instances when human intuition persistently tries to make earth-centric judgments of physics. He pointed out some of my intuitive blind spots, referring to us at times as "closet Aristotelians."
He brings a lot of passion and energy which really drives the lectures home.
I felt utterly confused at times and completely amazed at others. I recommend multiple listens. I'm listening to it a second time as we speak!
He does use a lot of visual aids (which a listener cannot see). He makes this work well enough but it definitely gets confusing to fully picture what he is describing at times. Minor blemish on an otherwise impeccable lecture.
Report Inappropriate Content
If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.