The Elegant Universe Brian Green Pdf Download. previous post The Brain A Very Short Introduction M O'Shea (Oxford, ) WW Pdf. wrote The Elegant Universe in an attempt to make the remarkable insights Duff, Kurt Gottfried, Joshua Greene, Teddy Jefferson, Marc. Kam'ionkowskil Yakov. Editorial Reviews. bestthing.info Review. There is an ill-concealed skeleton in the closet of Brian Greene, a specialist in quantum field theory, believes that the two pillars of physics can be reconciled in superstring theory, a theory of.
|Language:||English, Arabic, Japanese|
|Genre:||Business & Career|
|ePub File Size:||18.76 MB|
|PDF File Size:||8.66 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
Elegant Universe is an attempt to make these insights accessible to a broad Greene's has focuses on the impact superstring theory has on concepts of space . Pdf brian greene - the elegant universe - preterhuman - the elegant universe the. hidden dimensions and the quest for the ultimate theory PDF ePub Mobi.. free. The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. Review by Richard Rusczyk,. If you've ever wondered what's the fuss with string theory or what the theory's all about.
What's more, Einstein calculated that these ripples of gravity travel at exactly the speed of light. And so, with this new approach, Einstein resolved the conflict with Newton over how fast gravity travels. And more than that, Einstein gave the world a new picture for what the force of gravity actually is: Einstein called this new picture of gravity "General Relativity," and within a few short years Albert Einstein became a household name.
Einstein was like a rock star in his day. He was one of the most widely known and recognizable figures alive. He and perhaps Charlie Chaplin were the reigning kings of the popular media. People followed his work. And they were anticipating Despite all that he had achieved Einstein wasn't satisfied. He immediately set his sights on an even grander goal, the unification of his new picture of gravity with the only other force known at the time, electromagnetism.
Now electromagnetism is a force that had itself been unified only a few decades earlier. In the mids, electricity and magnetism were sparking scientists' interest. These two forces seemed to share a curious relationship that inventors like Samuel Morse were taking advantage of in newfangled devices, such as the telegraph.
An electrical pulse sent through a telegraph wire to a magnet thousands of miles away produced the familiar dots and dashes of Morse code that allowed messages to be transmitted across the continent in a fraction of a second. Although the telegraph was a sensation, the fundamental science driving it remained something of a mystery. But to a Scottish scientist named James Clark Maxwell, the relationship between electricity and magnetism was so obvious in nature that it demanded unification. If you've ever been on top of a mountain during a thunderstorm you'll get the idea of how electricity and magnetism are closely related.
When a stream of electrically charged particles flows, like in a bolt of lightning, it creates a magnetic field. And you can see evidence of this on a compass.
Obsessed with this relationship, the Scot was determined to explain the connection between electricity and magnetism in the language of mathematics.
Casting new light on the subject, Maxwell devised a set of four elegant mathematical equations that unified electricity and magnetism in a single force called "electromagnetism.
That was really the remarkable thing, that these different phenomena were really connected in this way. And it's another example of diverse phenomena coming from a single underlying building block or a single underlying principle.
Imagine that everything that you can think of which has to do with electricity and magnetism can all be written in four very simple equations. Isn't that incredible? Isn't that amazing? I call that elegant. Einstein thought that this was one of the triumphant moments of all of physics and admired Maxwell hugely for what he had done. About 50 years after Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism, Einstein was confident that if he could unify his new theory of gravity with Maxwell's electromagnetism, he'd be able to formulate a master equation that could describe everything, the entire universe.
Einstein clearly believes that the universe has an overall grand and beautiful pattern to the way that it works. So to answer your question, why was he looking for the unification? I think the answer is simply that Einstein is one of those physicists who really wants to know the mind of God, which means the entire picture. Today, this is the goal of string theory: Newton had unified the heavens and the earth in a theory of gravity.
Maxwell had unified electricity and magnetism. Einstein reasoned all that remained to build a "Theory of Everything"—a single theory that could encompass all the laws of the universe—was to merge his new picture of gravity with electromagnetism. He certainly had motivation. Probably one of them might have been aesthetics, or this quest to simplify.
Another one might have been just the physical fact that it seems like the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light. So if they both go at the same speed, then maybe that's an indication of some underlying symmetry. But as Einstein began trying to unite gravity and electromagnetism he would find that the difference in strength between these two forces would outweigh their similarities. Let me show you what I mean. We tend to think that gravity is a powerful force. After all, it's the force that, right now, is anchoring me to this ledge.
But compared to electromagnetism, it's actually terribly feeble. In fact, there's a simple little test to show this. Imagine that I was to leap from this rather tall building. Actually, let's not just imagine it. Let's do it. You'll see what I mean. Now, of course, I really should have been flattened. But the important question is: Well, strange as it sounds, the answer is electromagnetism.
Everything we can see, from you and me to the sidewalk, is made of tiny bits of matter called atoms. And the outer shell of every atom contains a negative electrical charge. So when my atoms collide with the atoms in the cement these electrical charges repel each other with such strength that just a little piece of sidewalk can resist the entire Earth's gravity and stop me from falling. In fact the electromagnetic force is billions and billions of times stronger than gravity.
That seems a little strange, because gravity keeps our feet to the ground, it keeps the earth going around the sun. But, in actual fact, it manages to do that only because it acts on huge enormous conglomerates of matter, you know—you, me, the earth, the sun—but really at the level of individual atoms, gravity is a really incredibly feeble tiny force.
It would be an uphill battle for Einstein to unify these two forces of wildly different strengths. And to make matters worse, barely had he begun before sweeping changes in the world of physics would leave him behind. Einstein had achieved so much in the years up to about , that he naturally expected that he could go on by playing the same theoretical games and go on achieving great things.
And he couldn't. Nature revealed itself in other ways in the s and s, and the particular tricks and tools that Einstein had at his disposal had been so fabulously successful, just weren't applicable anymore.
You see, in the s a group of young scientists stole the spotlight from Einstein when they came up with an outlandish new way of thinking about physics. Their vision of the universe was so strange, it makes science fiction look tame, and it turned Einstein's quest for unification on its head. Led by Danish physicist Niels Bohr, these scientists were uncovering an entirely new realm of the universe. Atoms, long thought to be the smallest constituents of nature, were found to consist of even smaller particles: And the theories of Einstein and Maxwell were useless at explaining the bizarre way these tiny bits of matter interact with each other inside the atom.
There was a tremendous mystery about how to account for all this, how to account for what was happening to the nucleus as the atom began to be pried apart in different ways. And the old theories were totally inadequate to the task of explaining them. Gravity was irrelevant. It was far too weak. And electricity and magnetism was not sufficient. Without a theory to explain this strange new world, these scientists were lost in an unfamiliar atomic territory looking for any recognizable landmarks.
Then, in the late s, all that changed. During those years, physicists developed a new theory called "quantum mechanics," and it was able to describe the microscopic realm with great success.
But here's the thing: Einstein's theories demand that the universe is orderly and predictable, but Niels Bohr disagreed. He and his colleagues proclaimed that at the scale of atoms and particles, the world is a game of chance.
At the atomic or quantum level, uncertainty rules. The best you can do, according to quantum mechanics, is predict the chance or probability of one outcome or another. And this strange idea opened the door to an unsettling new picture of reality.
The laws in the quantum world are very different from the laws that we are used to. Our daily experiences are totally different from anything that you would see in the quantum world. The quantum world is crazy. It's probably the best way to put it: For nearly 80 years, quantum mechanics has successfully claimed that the strange and bizarre are typical of how our universe actually behaves on extremely small scales. At the scale of everyday life, we don't directly experience the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
While I'd like an orange juice, there is only a particular probability that I'll actually get one. And there's no reason to be disappointed with one particular outcome or another, because quantum mechanics suggests that each of the possibilities like getting a yellow juice or a red juice may actually happen. They just happen to happen in universes that are parallel to ours, universes that seem as real to their inhabitants as our universe seems to us.
If there are a thousand possibilities, and quantum mechanics cannot, with certainty, say which of the thousand it will be, then all thousand will happen. Yeah, you can laugh at it and say, "Well, that has to be wrong.
Have to be a little careful, I think, before you say this is clearly wrong. And even in our own universe, quantum mechanics says there's a chance that things we'd ordinarily think of as impossible can actually happen. For example there's a chance that particles can pass right through walls or barriers that seem impenetrable to you or me. There's even a chance that I could pass through something solid, like a wall.
Now, quantum calculations do show that the probability for this to happen in the everyday world is so small that I'd need to continue walking into the wall for nearly an eternity before having a reasonable chance of succeeding. But here, these kinds of things happen all the time.
You have to learn to abandon those assumptions that you have about the world in order to understand quantum mechanics. In my gut, in my belly, do I feel like I have a deep intuitive understanding of quantum mechanics? And neither did Einstein. He never lost faith that the universe behaves in a certain and predictable way. The idea that all we can do is calculate the odds that things will turn out one way or another was something Einstein deeply resisted.
Quantum mechanics says that you can't know for certain the outcome of any experiment; you can only assign a certain probability to the outcome of any experiment.
And this, Einstein disliked intensely. He used to say "God does not throw dice. Yet, experiment after experiment showed Einstein was wrong and that quantum mechanics really does describe how the world works at the subatomic level. So quantum mechanics is not a luxury, something that you can do without. I mean why is water the way it is? Why does light go straight through water? Why is it transparent? Why are other things not transparent? How do molecules form? Why are they reacting the way they react?
The moment that you want to understand anything at an atomic level, as non-intuitive as it is, at that moment, you can only make progress with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is fantastically accurate. There has never been a prediction of quantum mechanics that has contradicted an observation, never. By the s, Einstein's quest for unification was floundering, while quantum mechanics was unlocking the secrets of the atom.
Scientists found that gravity and electromagnetism are not the only forces ruling the universe. Probing the structure of the atom, they discovered two more forces. One, dubbed the "strong nuclear force," acts like a super-glue, holding the nucleus of every atom together, binding protons to neutrons.
And the other, called the "weak nuclear force," allows neutrons to turn into protons, giving off radiation in the process. At the quantum level, the force we're most familiar with, gravity, was completely overshadowed by electromagnetism and these two new forces.
The Elegant Universe: Part 1
Now, the strong and weak forces may seem obscure, but in one sense at least, we're all very much aware of their power. In the middle of the desert, in New Mexico, at the top of a steel tower about a hundred feet above the top of this monument, the first atomic bomb was detonated. It was only about five feet across, but that bomb packed a punch equivalent to about twenty thousand tons of TNT.
With that powerful explosion, scientists unleashed the strong nuclear force, the force that keeps neutrons and protons tightly glued together inside the nucleus of an atom. By breaking the bonds of that glue and splitting the atom apart, vast, truly unbelievable amounts of destructive energy were released. We can still detect remnants of that explosion through the other nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, because it's responsible for radioactivity.
And today, more than 50 years later, the radiation levels around here are still about 10 times higher than normal. So, although in comparison to electromagnetism and gravity the nuclear forces act over very small scales, their impact on everyday life is every bit as profound. But what about gravity? Einstein's general relativity? Where does that fit in at the quantum level? Quantum mechanics tells us how all of nature's forces work in the microscopic realm except for the force of gravity.
Absolutely no one could figure out how gravity operates when you get down to the size of atoms and subatomic particles. That is, no one could figure out how to put general relativity and quantum mechanics together into one package. For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster.
You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully. You get answers that the probabilities of the event you're looking at are infinite. Nonsense, it's not profound, it's just nonsense. It's very ironic because it was the first force to actually be understood in some decent quantitative way, but, but, but it still remains split off and very different from, from the other ones.
The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres. Working in solitude, he stubbornly continued the quest he had begun more than a decade earlier, to unite gravity and electromagnetism. Every few years, headlines appeared, proclaiming Einstein was on the verge of success.
But most of his colleagues believed his quest was misguided and that his best days were already behind him. Einstein, in his later years, got rather detached from the work of physics in general and, and stopped reading people's papers.
I didn't even think he knew there was such a thing as the weak nuclear force. He didn't pay attention to those things. He kept working on the same problem that he had started working on as a younger man.
When the community of theoretical physicists begins to probe the atom, Einstein very definitely gets left out of the picture. He, in some sense, chooses not to look at the physics coming from these experiments.
That means that the laws of quantum mechanics play no role in his sort of further investigations. He's thought to be this doddering, sympathetic old figure who led an earlier revolution but somehow fell out of it. It is as if a general who was a master of horse cavalry, who has achieved great things as a commander at the beginning of the First World War, would try to bring mounted cavalry into play against the barbwire trenches and machines guns of the other side.
Albert Einstein died on April 18, And for many years it seemed that Einstein's dream of unifying the forces in a single theory died with him. So the quest for unification becomes a backwater of physics.
It's a pity that all research funding isn't allocated in such a responsible manner. For reasons that are not important to us here, these hypothetical particles are called superpartners. Well, there it is again.
It hasn't found them. View all comments. Manny Thank you Kat! In case you're wondering, I'd like to say that people at String Theorist dinner parties are only expected to talk about strings, they a Thank you Kat! In case you're wondering, I'd like to say that people at String Theorist dinner parties are only expected to talk about strings, they aren't obliged to wear strings.
We don't even check. The last string theorist we had over was a fairly well-known physicist. It wasn't a proper dinner party, just cheese and biscuits; he never used his plate and got crumbs all over the floor. Not was seriously unimpressed, and he hasn't been invited back. BlairB I think I know that one too. But, what's this whole fascination with finding everything anyway. I mean like that's a kids game and some of them never I think I know that one too.
I mean like that's a kids game and some of them never get found. So what? It's kind of multiverse, but I never look for anything unless I lost it; and if I didn't lose it it would be kind of silly to try to find what was right there.
Silly me. Just realized. This is an unreleased Antonioni movie. So embarrassed. View all 21 comments. Do I understand string theory? Not sure. Do I understand M theory? A little bit but don't ask for any algebraic reasoning.
Do I know exactly what a Calabi-Yau is? Not really but I think they look a little like the hair balls from my cat. This is the second time I've equated quantum physics and all its detours to a hair-ball. That's because I can study a hair ball and still have no idea what it is for and why they exist. String Theory and the elusive TOE is in the same category. I could go on my en Do I understand string theory? I could go on my entire life not knowing about them but now that I do, I need to know why.
Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, and my cat can't all be right. Or can they? That is essentially the dilemma of string theory and the book. Greene does a great job of putting everything in layman's term but there is a point which he must exceed the intellectual ionosphere and soar into the incalculable.
I really like this type of book. The challenge is the fun. But rest assured when the scientists get their act together and write an Idiot's guide to The Unified Theory Of Everything, I'll be the first in line. Hair balls and string theories have something else in common.
Once you tore one apart, you can never get your hands clean. View all 5 comments. I left Christianity a few years ago and swore off religion altogether; however, after reading this book, string theory has become tantamount to religion in my life. Brian Greene writes beautifully about particles, planets, and the origins of our universe as we know it today.
It is a heavy book- I don't recommend it for anyone who wants a quick, easy read. It took me almost two months to get through, but I learned a tremendous amount and came away in complete awe of the world and the forces at wo I left Christianity a few years ago and swore off religion altogether; however, after reading this book, string theory has become tantamount to religion in my life.
It took me almost two months to get through, but I learned a tremendous amount and came away in complete awe of the world and the forces at work in it today.
Since Green wrote his book string theory has come under intense scrutiny; despite this, I would still support this book on the basis that it is gorgeously written, based in fact many of the experiments and proofs were done by Greene himself , and incredibly informative.
A vertible Bible of where we came from, where we're going and the incredibly complex way things function in this glorious universe of ours. If you're into stuff like this, you can read the full review. The Kabbalah: Mathematics, My Daddy says is simply a game or a toy for the mind. I enjoy playing with math though I truly know now that it is not Universal Knowledge. Mathematics is like some sports. It brings Me fun and excitement.
As you all can see, all the so called greatest mathematicians and scientists and physicists humans' scholars humans gave so much high regards to have immediately realized that all those books and all those studies and all those "humans once thought of as knowledge" became child's play if not garbage right upon My Daddy revealed this Universal Truth and Knowledge.
Literally speaking, humans are among the most primitive civilizations in The Universe and yet we humans are very arrogant, sinful and blasphemous because we, humans do not know any better. To think I put all that effort to understand a discredited theory View all 4 comments. There is a great quote to the effect that "if you can't explain a subject in non-technical terms so that a lay person can understand it than you haven't really mastered the subject yourself.
For such a complicated and often "non intuitive" subject, Greene does an excellent job of laying o 4. For such a complicated and often "non intuitive" subject, Greene does an excellent job of laying out in understandable terms: Now even with Greene's fantastic explanations, once we got beyond the basics of string theory and onto such concepts as 10 "spatial" dimensions, mirror symmetry and Calabi-Yau manifolds, there were times when the subject matter was just difficult to grasp on an intuitive level.
However, Greene was quick to point out that the reader i. It also made me interested in learning more. I close the covers of The Elegant Universe with powerfully mixed feelings. On the one hand, Brian Greene gives us a lucidly-written layman's-terms explanation for high-concept modern physics, providing an excellent survey of 20th century science and painting a vivid picture of a promising strategy for reconciling the discrepancies in the otherwise dominant theories.
On the other hand, about half-way through the text, it devolves into what feels like a navel-gazing vanity project that fails to connect that promising strategy with the target audience i. To be clear: Brian Greene is a cogent writer with a wonderful pedagogical streak that is able to produce a clear image of some otherwise hard-to-decipher concepts in modern physics.
Because of The Elegant Universe , I feel like I now have a fairly good understanding of the core concepts underlying Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics e.
Greene is also able to give a decent explanation regarding how these theories break down when you try to "merge" them e. This first third of the book is very accessible, very enjoyable, and very informative. Engaging, fascinating, and extremely powerful. Somewhere during that potent pages, Greene remarks something to the effect of: You cannot be said to fully understand something until you can explain both its system and significance to a complete stranger.
Not a quote, but I'm sure you know what I'm getting at And with that statement does Dr. Greene undermine the remaining two-thirds of the book. By the time I realized what was happening, my attitude was already tainted. Perhaps I could have extracted more of the science if my cynicism hadn't kicked in so virulently and so early on in the reading. Perhaps spending more time with the end-notes will prove fruitful. There are some end-notes and citations for further reading, and he does attempt to dedicate some space in the main text to the idea — but his "dumbing down" of the Calabi-Yau manifolds to the "ant in the garden hose" analogy just doesn't really address it with sufficient vigor.
What other items do customers download after viewing this item?
Not after the incredible work he did in the earlier chapters re explaining relativity and quantum mechanics. If that's even really what he might have meant.
To be fair, Greene leaves plenty of room throughout the text to permit himself and his colleagues studying superstring theory to be "wrong". It reminds me of when Robert Wright hedges his bets in The Moral Animal , saying that the evolutionary psychology approach as championed by himself, Richard Dawkins, E.
Wilson, Robert Trivers, and others is a strong one that explains a whole lot but you better be careful before you go painting too broad of a stroke with those kinds of theories Greene seems to do similar hedging, admitting that aspects of superstring theory seem tenuous esp.
But then there's Greene's enthusiasm — which can easily electrify the reader but also just as easily undermine all of that careful hedging.
View all 3 comments. Oct 06, Elyse Walters rated it really liked it. My local book club picked this book for our non-fiction month. I've been a part of this group- the largest-best Bay Area Book club!!!!
In the 5 years I been part of this group, I can't remember a more challenging book to fully understand. The superstring theory is 'taught' by Brian Green' for those of us with maybe a basic Physics level one course. I can't imagine understanding anything, without having had at least some High School or College physics. This book is not for everyone, yet it's Top N My local book club picked this book for our non-fiction month. This book is not for everyone, yet it's Top Notch If you have a strong desire to read about The fundamental laws of the universe, how they are structured, then by all means, give this book a shot.
I took soooo many notes, and I've still a dozen questions, yet the author does do an excellent job in explaining the new advances of the cosmos that have come to light during this last decade. The author explained over and over So the lay person may understand that we must merge general relativity and quantum mechanics--and make use of string theory.
It's the 'teaching' of the ways string theory appears which begins to get more challenging to comprehend. I've done my best Yet hoping others in my book club might be able to fill in some holes which went way over my head.
View all 8 comments. Frankly, the entire idea of rolled up dimensions—of a universe containing perhaps ten, twelve, eighteen dimensions, of which we are only capable of perceiving four—is suitably mind-blowing and humbling at the same time; and although Greene's low-culture themed analogies that frequently pop-up to help elucidate the complex concepts he is trying to convey may irritate at times, he does a bang-up job in making it understandable without blotting the outlines in thick physiquese or mathematics.
I believe that several physicists have now concluded that Lisi's theory doesn't hold up, but I'm intrigued by the rumblings I've encountered by others who consider string theory to be a corridor that is proving of a confining narrowness, one that has consumed a disproportionate amount of the energy from some of the top minds in this field in pursuit of a theory that more and more appears irreconcilably inelegant and complex for the unifying end that it is meant to achieve.
I have some potentially stunning books on the shelf awaiting my attention—in particular, Lisa Randall's Warped Passages , Michio Kaku's Hyperspace , Michael Fayer's Absolutely Small , and Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics —all of which I have unfortunately neglected for some time now, but are ripe with the promise of immense rewards to the mind when their contents are finally consumed.
Personally, one of the most stimulating moments in the The Elegant Universe was Greene's articulation of how we, as humans, are travelling through time at the speed of light ; thus tickling my brain with the thought that light —immune to the mundane effects of forward-marching time—is a bridge towards an omnipotent godhead.
If light is moving at the speed of light through space—not time—is it possible that its entire permutation from Big Bang through to Cosmic Deflation would be accessible in a single given moment of time, i.
As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass becomes infinite—would the same exponential assault waylay ever-present light as it approaches the speed of time? Would fulgent awareness become infinitely sluggish or limited as it neared this clock-marked barrier? From the—for lack of a better word— point of view of Lightspeed, would there exist differing quantum pathways that wend throughout the four perceivable dimensions, and from a high enough level, will they appear identical at select points of chronological evolution?
Thanks Brian, for zapping me like you did into further confused wonder. Mar 26, Daniel Clausen rated it it was amazing Shelves: For most of my life, physics and the general sciences have seemed beyond me. At the same time, I've been lucky enough in high school and university to have instructors who are willing to let me "give science a try" in a not threatening way. This book is one such attempt to allow ordinary people to give science a try.
In this book, you'll get a crash course in physics as an evolving subject, from the theory of gravity, to special relativity, to general relativity, to quantum mechanics, to string For most of my life, physics and the general sciences have seemed beyond me. In this book, you'll get a crash course in physics as an evolving subject, from the theory of gravity, to special relativity, to general relativity, to quantum mechanics, to string theory, you'll be taken on a fantastic journey into the heart of science.
A word of warning, though, one of my geeky friends told me that "String Theory" is now a passing fad. That might put you off the book. I still felt like there was a lot of value in reading this book simply as a mental challenge. The book was challenging to read, even if it is supposed to be dumbed down physics. This book blew my mind countless times as I read through it, so much so that I could usually only read pages in one sitting.
Books like this let you visit that world for a while and this author does a fantastic job explaining general and advanced physics, Ein This book blew my mind countless times as I read through it, so much so that I could usually only read pages in one sitting.
Books like this let you visit that world for a while and this author does a fantastic job explaining general and advanced physics, Einstein, etc with many real world examples.
Trust me, your mind will be doing flip flops when he talks about time bending, space travel, etc. After he builds the foundation, he sets the stage to cover string theory which many believe will be the next great leap in figuring out why the universe exists and where is it going. Awesome read to keep your mind sharp.
View all 7 comments. It is a beautifully written book! However, it is not for beginners. I think some classes in physics or cosmology, or a long-time subscription to a magazine like New Scientist or Science News would be a necessary educational background before reading this book. As far as I can tell, the book is a five-star read in clarity and expert knowledge.
From Wikipedia, I learned Greene is a genuine scientist. He attended Harvard and got his Ph.
download for others
Greene joined the physics faculty at Cornell in and was appointed to a full professorship in He joined the staff of Columbia University as a full professor. Greene does an amazing job of condensing a hundred years of cosmological science and physics into a few chapters.
Greene leads readers, gently, into how scientific experiments on quantum particles, especially photons and electrons, led to discoveries about the structures of atoms. These explorations have added hints about further mysteries yet to know surrounding the beginning and current state of the universe.
Around chapter five, Greene begins discussing string theories in depth. At first, I could follow. Clearly mathematics is the main source behind string theories and physics , making real-world descriptions difficult. Green makes a heroic effort at avoiding direct mention of the maths except in the Notes section at the back of the book. He includes drawings and word-picture analogies using vivid visuals such as walnuts and donuts and trampolines and beach balls and floating astronauts moving about in space , to illustrate the theoretical conclusions derived from the mathematical view of the universe.
This is an example of what killed neurons in my head: We hoped, in line with the strategy discussed earlier, that this mass would agree identically with a similar calculation done on the Calabi-Yau shape emerging from the space-tearing flop transition.
The latter was the relatively easy calculation and we had completed it weeks before; the answer turned out to be 3, in the particular units we were using.
Since we were now doing the purported mirror calculation numerically on a computer, we expected to get something extremely close to but not exactly 3, something like 3. Confirmation of space-tearing flop transitions by a mirror mathematical version of normal physics mathematics, which proved part of the physics of string theory. Got it? Or this: But what does such a wrapped-brane configuration look like?
This is not obvious and becomes clear only from a detailed study of the equations governing the branes. The bigger the volume of the sphere, the bigger the three-brane must be in order to wrap around it, and the more massive it becomes. Similarly, the smaller the volume of the sphere, the smaller the mass of the three-brane that wraps it.
As this sphere collapses, then, the three-brane that wraps around the sphere, which is perceived as a black hole, appears to become ever lighter. When the three-dimensional sphere has collapsed to a pinched point, the corresponding black hole—brace yourself—is massless. None of this is visible to the naked eye, gentle reader, and some of it not to the naked brain in any kind of brane. My bosons are weak, gentle reader, weak, by my gauge.
The forces of my framework have been mechanically perturbed into a mass universe of simplified confusion. There is a Notes section which supposedly is in English, not that I could tell - a native English speaker - and an Index. However, maybe too many donuts whether torus or spherical and not enough broccoli in my life has annihilated the necessary electrons I needed to shine like an energetic photon.
I am clearly reduced in mental energy to the lower spectrums, like ancient photonic microwaves spread out in a vast void of background noise, barely distinguished.
This book presents the latest breakdown of empirical existance with string theory- it's really well written and it sugguest how the fundimentals of all existing things come together in a very similar way as our understanding of music little vibrations.
I love this subject because, where the goal of civilization is to appreciate life in some form of organized chaos, some well spoken theorists have the ability to put things into perspective in such a way that the world seems to teem with possibi This book presents the latest breakdown of empirical existance with string theory- it's really well written and it sugguest how the fundimentals of all existing things come together in a very similar way as our understanding of music little vibrations.
I love this subject because, where the goal of civilization is to appreciate life in some form of organized chaos, some well spoken theorists have the ability to put things into perspective in such a way that the world seems to teem with possibility.
Food for thought if you read this: Presentism holds that neither the future nor the past exist—that the only things that exist are present things, and there are no non-present objects.
Some have taken presentism to indicate that time travel is impossible for there is no future or past to travel to; however, recently some presentists have argued that although past and future objects do not exist, there can still be definite truths about past and future events, and that it is possible that a future truth about the time traveler deciding to return to the present date could explain the time traveler's actual presence in the present.
In any case, the relativity of simultaneity in modern physics is generally understood to cast serious doubt on presentism and to favor the view known as four dimensionalism closely related to the idea of block time in which past, present and future events all coexist in a single spacetime. I read this book while taking a course for non-physics students called Modern Physics in Perspective, which centered on string theory. If you're reading this book unassisted, be aware that there are some very confusing sections that you'll need to read a few times.And since he had shown that nothing, not even gravity, can travel faster than light, how could the earth be released from orbit before the darkness resulting from the sun's disappearance reached our eyes?
To the young upstart from the Swiss patent office anything outrunning light was impossible, and that meant the year old Newtonian picture of gravity was wrong.
Wilson, Robert Trivers, and others is a strong one that explains a whole lot but you better be careful before you go painting too broad of a stroke with those kinds of theories And the theories of Einstein and Maxwell were useless at explaining the bizarre way these tiny bits of matter interact with each other inside the atom.
This is the second time I've equated quantum physics and all its detours to a hair-ball. In this book, you'll get a crash course in physics as an evolving subject, from the theory of gravity, to special relativity, to general relativity, to quantum mechanics, to string For most of my life, physics and the general sciences have seemed beyond me.
If there are a thousand possibilities, and quantum mechanics cannot, with certainty, say which of the thousand it will be, then all thousand will happen. So here's the question: At the scale of everyday life, we don't directly experience the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
This book presents the latest breakdown of empirical existance with string theory- it's really well written and it sugguest how the fundimentals of all existing things come together in a very similar way as our understanding of music little vibrations.