When you read an original book, in full, you expect to get the full benefit of the author’s thinking process and have their ideas spelled out in detail. When you are just reading a summary, then you can expect something less. An in this case, my review is of the Blinkist summary. When I’ve had the chance to check a Blinkist summary against the original book, the summary has come out pretty well. And life is short; so I’ve been reading a lot more of the summaries recently. If they really grab me, I will seek out the original. Meantime, here are a few snippets from the summary that caught my attention:
Back in ancient times, we used gods to explain the world’s natural phenomena.
It would take the ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle, Archimedes and Thales to move us past this mythological thinking.......While someone like Archimedes wouldn’t be considered a proper scientist today, he was one of the first to conduct experimens....In early modern times, it became known as the scientific method–a strict system for formulating a hypothesis and rigorously testing it through experiments, measurements and observation.
This led us to scientific determinism, the belief that every occurrence in nature can be scientifically explained–even human decisions.........Scholars have long debated the concept of free will and whether such a thing even exists...........Descartes makes a compelling case, yet it also raises a great many questions:........if humans have free will, do all mammals? If so, when did this trait appear in our evolution?.......Where do we draw the line between living things that are subject to scientific law and those that possess this seemingly magical quality?.......The simple truth is that there is no line.....Any choice we make can now be attributed to biological mechanics,
What you call “reality” is a mental picture that your brain produces from the information your senses are sending......Ultimately, the reality you experience is no more or less valid than that of any other living organism.
There are four criteria that every good model of reality should adhere to.
1. First of all, it should be elegant.
2. The second criteria for a good theory is that it shouldn't be dependent on too many adjustable or random factors.
3. The third criteria for a good model is that it needs to explain every existing observation.
4. Finally, the fourth criteria states that every good theory must contribute to future observations and predictions.
Heisenberg believed that it was impossible to simultaneously measure, with any precision, the position and velocity of a particle. [Actually, it’s not velocity it’s momentum.....It worries me a little when there are mistakes like this...Is it in the original or in the Blinkist summary?].
The best you can do is measure the probability of the various places a particle is likely to be.
by making an observation, we are affecting what we are observing.
Albert Einstein was only 26 years old in 1905 when he published his Theory of Special Relativity and his later Theory of General Relativity was also a game changer in that it described how gravity works. But quantum theory and general relativity, don’t exactly play well together.
This is something physicists have been struggling with for generations: a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) that will link together three out of the four fundamental forces of nature–weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and electromagnetism. The final fundamental force of nature is gravity.
M-Theory [is one theory that attempts to combine the four]. It works a bit like an atlas: it contains individual maps that provide the details of local areas......and when you put them all together you have everything covered.
It suggests the likelihood of multiple universes.
It was 1929 when the American astronomer Edwin Hubble made the discovery that nearly all galaxies are moving in one direction–away from Earth.......The conclusion was clear: the universe is expanding.......However, if we believe it is God that created the universe, this raises more questions, including the core question of who or what created God.
The key message in this book: For thousands of years, humans have explained physical occurrences by attributing them to the whims of gods. But the universe is governed by physical laws and can be understood in accordance with them. Physical laws tell us how the universe behaves, and humans have been able to discover these laws through the development and implementation of the scientific method.
My take on the book: OK but is this all. It’s kind of a lame ending. M theory appears to be put forward as the grand unified theory but it also suggests (or requires) multiple universes and many physicists are not happy with this sort of explanation that requires infinities and is essentially unfalsifiable....ie. non-scientific. Frankly I was very disappointed with this book. I expected a lot more from the authors. Nothing there that was new to me.......no new insights. Is that the fault of the Blinkist team in summarising or is the fault with the original. I guess, I’d have to go to the original to find out but on this reading, that is not going to happen. Three stars from me. It’s not all bad but nothing there really grabs me. ( )

What a mixed bag. Lots of good stuff about the history of cosmology and grand theories, but the explanation of the M-theory is pretty sketchy. The whole discussion of The Game of Life at the end was pretty simplistic (speaking as one who spent many hours one time tweaking Life's rules and writing my own games). The book just didn't really add up to me, though its conclusions make sense. Just didn't seem very well put together to me. ( )

I learned a lot of interesting things in this book and appreciated the book's inquiry into profound cosmological questions, but hats off to any non-specialist who understands the last three pages (you know, the one where the authors sum up the answer to life, the universe, and everything in an oddly cursory fashion).

In general I prefer my popular nonfiction to give me a snapshot of the state of an academic discipline rather than promoting specific theories, but physicists, what can you do.

I also thought Hawking and Mlodinow could have done a better job steering readers away from Wrong Ideas and general confusion that could arise from multiverse theory (like, do all those histories of a photon EXIST in the same way that multiple universes are proposed to exist? If observing the photon selects its history, what about humans observing the universe? I don't know whether these are sensible questions to ask but I'm sure I'm not the only reader who wondered about them.) ( )

This book is like having your favorite subject being thought by a teacher you can't stand. It feels dumbed down a lot (especially my edition that has a huge font and a lot of pictures so you'll feel smart by reading "fast", it also feels a lot heavier than other paperbacks to make it seem like better quality).
It's more like a history of physics than new answers, didn't read anything I didn't already know before well after the halfway mark.. It also feels like Leonard has had the task of introducing these theories for the public in a way they will understand them, by being, what he thinks, is funny and using pop culture references. This made me focus more on his writing than the theories I was interested in. Had to force myself trough it. I can't help but think how this could have been presented differently if for example Malcolm Gladwell was narrating, making sure he explained it to you without belittling you or giving you all of his own opinions. Disappointed. It's not a bad book per se but it feels like it belongs more in a school setting. ( )

Too light-weight; I was able to read this in a few hours total. I was hoping for something more... detailed, I guess. I realize the math is beyond any mere dilettante, but this book was *very* high level. ( )

If you're reading a book about "The most fundamental questions about the origins of the universe and of life itself " you'd think the writers would take the subject seriously. But unfortunately, that's not the case with this book. For some bizarre reason, the authors repeatedly interject silly humor into their arguments against the universe being created by God as we know him. These are two men of proven brilliance, writing for a general audience. But if this is their idea of the best way to reach a mass audience well, all I have to say is ; I'm insulted. ( )

Stručná historie času se sice stala zaslouženým fenoménem a udělala z Hawkinga světovou celebritu, nemůžu se však zbavit dojmu, že se ve své snaze popularizovat vědu Hawking od jejího vydání spíše trápí. Soubor esejů Černé díry a budoucnost vesmíru rozhodně stojí za přečtení, protože pootevírá dveře do soukromého života autora a dovysvětluje některé pojmy, které zůstaly i po Stručné historii nejasné. Další knihy jsou však většinou jen variacemi na Hawkingovu populární prvotinu a Velkolepý plán není jiný. Nejenže na Stručnou historii nijak nenavazuje, což bylo autorem slibováno, on pořádně ani neplní svůj hlavní úkol, totiž objasnit, jak mohl vesmír vzniknout bez zásahu stvořitele. Je tak především sbírkou různých anekdot popisujících, jak vesmír vnímaly předchozí generace a jejich náboženství, proloženou nepříliš stravitelným fyzikálních jevů, z nichž většina již byla lépe popsána ve Stručné historii, a část je navíc pro vysvětlení vzniku vesmíru možná i zbytečná. Prokládání textu alkoholickými vtipy či podobně nevtipnými kresbičkami pak nečiní knihu ani srozumitelnější, ani zábavnější. Velkolepému plánu se vyhněte. Místo něj otevřete radši starou dobrou Stručnou historii času, a až ji opravdu pochopíte, postupte třeba ke Kraussově knize Vesmír z ničeho, jelikož ta otázku vzniku vesmíru dokáže popsat čitelněji, jednodušeji a přitom odborněji. ( )

A high level overview of the modern physics. Nice, small read. ( )

Starts as a great explanation of quantum physics, then becomes an impenetrable book on M theory (to me at least). Still, a super interesting read! ( )

I don't get it. Well, I didn't expect to get it, and it's certainly an easier read than Warped Passages and I haven't read N dG Tyson's book yet. Anyhow, I don't think there's really any way to understand something that's an advanced mathematical concept, through analogies. I'm just reading up on cosmology hoping to learn enough to understand science fiction and the Big Bang Theory. No, not the theory, the television series.

That said, though I'm not offended or even bored by the same old explanations that involve rubber sheets or balls bouncing on airplanes, even I feel condescended to when somebody talking about really big numbers writes them out with all the zeroes. Was intrigued however by Feynman sums, that was new to me. ( )

Po mom misljenju, "Velika Zamisao" je delo koje citalac treba prvo da procita pre nego sto se posveti ostalim delima iz Hokingovog opusa. Narocito ukoliko zeli da razume neka izuzetno teska poglavlja u njegovom prvom delu "Kratka Povest Vremena".
U ovoj knjizi Hoking opisuje razvoj fizike i kosmologije od vremena velikih grckih filozofa pa sve do danasnjih dana. Prateci razvoj fizike Hoking nas uvodi u ideju M-teorije koja bi po zamisli trebala da objedini sve opste prihvacene teorije o nastanku i evoluciji univerzuma koji nas okruzuje i ciji smo sastavni deo i mi sami.
Sta to zapravo podrazumeva?
Trenutno ne postoji teorija koja moze da definise sve, vec se radi o skupu teorija koje se bave odredjenim svojstvima univerzuma.
Ajnstajnova opsta teorija relativiteta se bavi setom fizickih zakona koji definisu makrokosmos, tacnije gravitacijom i njenim uticajem na fizicki svet. Sa druge strane kvantna fizika ima set svojih zakona koji se odnose na mikrokosmos i koji definisu ponasanje atomskih i subatomskih cestica, pri cemu su ovi zakoni u suprotnosti sa Ajnstajnovom teorijom relativiteta. Kako je ovo moguce?
Klasican primer je gravitacija. Ova sila drzi na okupu sva nebeska tela pa i nas drzi vezanim za ovu planetu, ali u mikrokosmosu ova sila ne drzi elektron koji kruzi oko atomskog jezgra. Dakle, atomske i subatomske cestice se rukovode nekim drugim zakonima.
U trenutku Velikog Praska, kada je vasiona nastala zakoni kvantne fizike su dominirali oblikujuci buducu istoriju nama poznatog kosmosa. U tim prvim trenucima citav univerzum je bio cestican. Kako se univerzum poceo siriti inflacijom i narastajucom entropijom tako se poceo hladiti a isprva ekstremno brze cestice su hladjenjem pocele usporavati sto im je omogucilo grupisanje u slozene sisteme. Upravo to grupisanje omogucava stvaranje materije, a sa njom na snagu stupaju zakoni opste teorije relativiteta. Sa konstantnom inflacijom univerzuma ovi zakoni postaju sve jaci u odnosu na zakone kvantne fizike koji gube na svom pocetnom intezitetu.
Upravo u ovome lezi ideja M-teorije koja bi trebala da objedini sve teorije u jednu teoriju, teoriju svega. Ne samo ove dve teorije, kvantnu fiziku i Ajnstajnovu opstu teoriju relativiteta vec i mnoge druge poput Hajzenbergovog principa neodredjenosti, teorije struna i superstruna, teorija multiverzuma i mnoge druge koje bi dale celovitu sliku univerzuma u kojem zivimo i kojom bi dobili odgovor na 3 pitanja koja su opsedala Hokinga.
-Zasto postoji nesto umesto nicega?
-Zasto postojimo?
-Zasto postoji ovaj skup zakona a ne neki drugi?

Moram da napomenem na kraju da se knjiga nece dopasti onima kod kojih je poimanje Boga i bozanskog upliva neraskidivo vezan za sve sto postoji. Hoking je izricit u svom stavu da je njegova predstava univerzuma lisena bozanskog bica. Otuda brojne kritike i lose ocene.

Ocena 5. Treba procitati makar se i ne slagali sa Hokingovim religijskim stavovima. Moze se dosta toga nauciti. Preporucujem. ( )

"Philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics." From the first page Stephen Hawking destroys some cherished myths. You can read for yourself what he has to say about free will, but it is also somewhat shocking.

In a very short book, Hawking manages to take on the ultimate questions of life, the universe, and everything (the answer is not 42) and while he doesn't completely answer the questions, he makes a case for some answers to the "whys" that traditionally have been the realm of philosophers.

While there is no heavy mathematics in the book, it is a challenging read with a lot of topics which require one to think somewhat differently about the universe than most of us are used to. While I never re-read books, I will probably make an exception for this book, and feel that I need to re-read it to glean more understanding of the theories he presents.

All-in-all I highly recommend this book for those who want a greater understanding of modern physics, and the early scientists whose work has been built upon to produce modern physics. It is a concise history of physics with emphasis on the quest for a grand unified theory that will bring together all of the specific theories that apply in limited environments. ( )

Too basic, this book is only for people who know absolutely nothing about the subject. Even then, there are better books to read that explain far more. Hawking fails to clearly define M-theory, instead preferring to discuss the history of how the field of theoretical physics developed, with not enough on the science behind it. A very disappointing read. ( )

Just a general review of the sciences from history to the present while trumping the quantum theory, m-theory, and other theories. Regardless what scientists say: I am one to continue to believe in a Creator who cares deeply about his creation and the fact that the universe is governed by laws and principles and is precisely tune for life is evidence in itself for the existence of a Creator. Yes, the universe was created and is being stretched out like a fine gauze and is it not marvelous in our own eyes? Science without a Creator is an exercise in futility. Mathematical and scientific methods are useful tools to explain how things are made, or exist; but these tools can never excuse or deny the existence of the Creator. ( )

Well-written, but annoyed me frequently. (1) attempts at humor, (2) arguing against the necessity of God, (3) arrogance in thinking their theory is the one the world's been waiting for, (4) and could reality really be as complicated and strange as theoretical physics says it is. ( )

A very nice history of scientific models across the ages culminating with M theory, which is presented as the best candidate today for the theory of everything. A bit hard to follow in audiobook format, but a worthwhile listen nonetheless. ( )

Hmmmmm..

I enjoyed the science part of this book. Universe. Cosmology. Physics. M-Theory. All that.

But the book fails to deliver. It seems incomplete. It didn't really answer the 'why' questions about life it posed. Even if it tried, it completely failed and wasn't convincing at all ! I thought the last chapters would show me something about Hawking. It only convinced that such things are beyond the grasp of a human mind. The answers Hawking seems to provide do nothing more than provoke more 'why' questions.

If you want to read this book, read it for the science part. Nothing more. ( )

The Grand Design is in all likelihood a fine book, and it may be unfair for me to cirticize it all all, since the problem I had was simply that I just didn't get it. I consider myself technically savy, educated in a technical field, but that didn't help me at all. I finished it yesterday, and can barely describe any of the concepts, much less pretend to explain any of the premises of the book. And I know within the next couple of days, all concepts will have slipped from my memory. I've tried reading Hawking before with no better results, and the only thing I'm getting out of his books is an inferiority complex. To me, I just wasted my time, and I couldn't recommend this book to the casual reader. ( )

Written in Hawking's characteristic style...simple explanations, vivid imagery and a lot of geeky humor. ( )

He can get quite technical at times but overall a cogent read. In the end, he jumped a little for me. For example, here he tries to refute that a creator is required:

"If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative: one has to do work to separate a gravitationally bound system... black holes have positive energy [and they balance out the negative energy]. That's why empty space is stable. [that is, a body cannot appear in empty space.] Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can.
Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational enerby, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes." (p.180)

Nevertheless, it's difficult to find a book of this length that does a better job at explaining some pretty mind-blowing concepts. ( )

Reading this, I had brief glimpses of what it would be like to understand quantum physics, and it was amazing. I want to read it again sometime - it's too much to take in all at once. ( )

Fairly easy to read, but only skims the surface of most of the issues covered. Ok as a broad overview of some ideas of cosmology but ultimately unsatisfying. ( )

The content was good for the topics I knew (although it wasn't enough), so I can be sure that the introduction of the topics I didn't know was also good (which includes almost everything in it related to quantum superpositions.)

Could have been a bit focused on the mathematical side of things. ( )

Non ho gli strumenti cognitivi per comprendere il 95% delle cose spiegate in questo libro, e non mi sono mai sentito così ignorante. Ma è talmente interessante, e a volte scioccante, che viene voglia di approfondire. Faticoso se non si hanno nozioni di fisica. ( )

The Grand Design

I decided to read this because of the short length and good rating....
...I will take Goodreads' ratings with a pinch of salt with my future books.

If you have even a mild interest in physics beyond high school, you'll immediately realize that this book offers nothing more. The book seems like a group of ideas put together without proper thought or plan - ironically being very un-grand in its design. It seems less like a description of the design of the universe and more like an update of the beliefs and research of Stephen Hawking.

If you are going to read this book, just don't. ( )