The Grand Design

If you want to read a science book that has a lot of humor in it, this is a good choice. I feel Stephen Hawking made complex concepts understandable and he also has a knack for explaining history in an interesting way. If you are looking for a book that explains a lot of concepts secular scientists believe, this will interest you. The debate between creationists and secular scientists becomes more clear when you look at both sides of the story. What also makes this book really cute is the use of Sidney Harris' funny cartoons throughout. This book reminded me of a time when I was first enjoying learning about science in the 1900s and my dad explained how light was a particle and a wave. My dad being a bit of a scientist and inventor was helpful when I had to do projects for science class. So some of this book was a trip down memory lane. What I guess I disagree with is that God was not necessary for creation and that philosophy is dead. I think philosophy is very much alive, why else do people start threads at forums discussing what happens after death? I think the question of "Why are we here?" resonates with almost anyone. I did however think that Stephen Hawking is right when he presents his insight into why the world is such a mess. When he is also talking about God possibly creating the universe - I think he is nearer to the truth. But needless to say I enjoyed reading this book and found it entertaining and educational. Just be prepared for words like "geodesics." There is fortunately a glossary in this book. If you read it on the kindle of course, you can have all sorts of fun looking up words. ~The Rebecca Review

The Grand Design, while still qualifying an helpful general overview of cosmology for nonscientists, is in its essence, a profoundly unpersuasive book about metaphysics, in which Hawking asks the questions: "Why is there something rather than nothing? "Why do we exist? "Why this particular set of laws and not some other?" but refuses to acknowledge the conclusions which his own summary of the evidence should properly lead him to. Specifically, Hawking's stated goal is to establish that it is at least "possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, without invoking any divine beings." What is remarkable in this formulation is its tacit admission that the evidence for a deliberate design of the universe for the purpose of supporting life has become so overwhelming, the best an atheist such as Hawking (per his ex-wife ) may do is merely to try to prevent the case for a kind of intelligent design to be formally declared made. Remarkably, Hawking fails even in this modest ambition. Even if there are persuasive answers to these questions within the realm of science, they do not emerge from this book. The problem for atheists and agnostics is that, as Hawking forthrightly acknowledges, "Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and if we are to exist leaves little room for alteration. This is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way." The chances of the laws of physics having been randomly set to support life seems so astonishingly small as to be for all practical purposes, zero. As Hawking noted in A Brief History of Time "If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang have been smaller by even one part in 100,000 million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size." And this is only one of the 6 rules of physics, the precise setting of which were identified by physicist Martin Rees in his book Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe as essential to the existence of life. Nor do these 6 numbers include the very peculiar fact that in order for carbon to exist in any appreciable quantities "the sum of the energies of a beryllium nucleus and a helium nucleus must be almost exactly the energy of a certain quantum state of the isotope of carbon formed, a situation called a resonance, which greatly increases the rate of a nuclear reaction". The odds of this occurring randomly was deemed so small by the man who predicted it that he, Astronomer Fred Hoyle, asserted that "I do not believe that any scientist to examine the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars". The same inference could just as easily be made regarding the fact that so many other laws of nature seem so precisely calibrated to support life. This is an inference however Hawking declines to make, most likely because "Some would claim that the answers to these questions is that there is a God whose chose to create universe that way." Unfortunately for those whose world view is premised upon belief in a random and meaningless universe, Hawking's alternative explanation, as set forth in this book, is completely unpersuasive Briefly, as best I can tell, Hawking's argument boils down invocation of M-Theory and Feynman's multiple-histories theory to suggest that there are innumerable alternative universes with different laws of physics, the vast majority of which do not support life, leaving it no more than a matter of random chance at least one does. However, the fact that M-theory allows for this possibility or that multiple-histories, as applied by Hawking, assumes it, offers little actual reason to believe that such alternative universes really do exist. Hawking observes that "The laws of M-theory ... allow for different universes with different apparent laws, depending on how the internal spaces curled. M-theory has solutions that allow for many different internal spaces, perhaps as many as 10 to the 500th power which allows for ten to the 500th power different universes, each with its own laws." And because the M-Theory allows for this enormous amounts of Universes, therefore apparently such Universes must exist, and it is simply our good fortune to live in one of the few numbers of such Universes that allow for life. The problem with this reasoning is it assumes that because the M-theory "allows" for different universes with different laws, that is reason enough to believe they exist. This is a breathtaking logical leap, something akin to saying because the laws of physics allow for the possibility that aliens are abducting human being and harvesting them for their sperm and eggs to create an alien-human hybrid species, therefore they are. However, the mere fact that something is not impossible is not evidence of its existence. The Constitution allows for any child born in the United States (except for the children of diplomats) to become president after the age of 35. Nevertheless, for me to insist that Yemen-based Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki will eventually become President simply because he was born in the United States (not of diplomats) and is over 35 years old is probably not going to convince many people to contribute to his campaign. Hawking's other argument for the existence of multiple universes is so obviously fallacious that it is remarkable that a man of his extraordinary learning and intelligence could even seriously propose it. He starts off by reasoning from Feynman's multiple histories theories that no quantum event has a single history, but actually a virtual infinity of histories, and the only way to predict the outcome of any particular quantum event is to sum all the possible events which might occur and divide it in some way to come up with the likelihood of any particular outcome. Thus in describing how photons pass through the slits in the screen in the famous "double slit" experiment, one must take into account the possibility that the photon may have circled around Jupiter before arriving it its final destination. Therefore, Hawking argues, that to determine how the Universe got to its present state, one must sum up all the possible different states it could have begun with, including, apparently, those 10 to the 500th power different possible starting states of the Universe allowed by M theory. Therefore, given the fact that we human beings exist, ultimately when one sums up and divides all these alternative histories, one arrives again at the fact that we are fortunate enough to live up in one of the few (or perhaps only) Universe which allows for our existence. The problem is that this argument simply assumes away the question. To use the alien abduction analogy again, its like saying that the double slit experiment demonstrates that there are human-abducting extraterrestrials because in developing the necessary sums to determine the outcome of the experiment one must take into possibility that a photon travelled to the mothership orbiting the earth and passed through a memorandum setting forth their insidious hybrid insemination scheme. In short, for Hawking's version of multiple histories to take into consideration multiple alternative universes, it must assume multiple alternative universes exist. Assumptions are not evidence, a legal principle even physicists should be somewhat acquainted with. At the end of the day, the one point which must be conceded to Hawking and other like Richard Dawkins and Martin Rees who rely upon belief in multiple alternative universes to avoid the otherwise inescapable conclusion that the Universe is designed to support life, is that there is no evidence to conclusively demonstrate that such alternative universes do not exist, just as there is no conclusive evidence that human abducting aliens do not exist either. But actually that's not a fair comparison. There is in fact, at the very least, an immense amount of testimonial evidence of alien abduction. However, there is no evidence at all for the existence of multiple universes merely, as Hawking correctly notes, various (untested) theories which may allow for the possibility of their existence, just as surely as there are in fact far more reliable and tested theories allowing for the possibility of extraterrestrial kidnappers and the future presidency of Imam Al-Awaki. So while Hawking is ultimately correct to assert that it is possible to answer his questions "purely within the realm of science, without invoking any divine beings", it would have been more candid to add that there is no evidence at all to support the suggested possibilities, while the evidence that the law of physics were precisely calibrated to support life is somewhere between enormous and overwhelming. The fact that Hawking feels compelled to raise such unconvincing arguments for refuting the case for the strong anthropic principle as he does in this book is a testimony to just how desperate non-theists have become in their efforts to deny the obvious. Nevertheless, the book is still well worth reading for its entertaining and informative overview of the current state of cosmology.

This was the longest short book I have read as yet. For a non-physicist like me, it was a heavenly gift. Stephen Hawkings has the unique way of explaining to a layman like me what it is all about; where we are and how we got here. It is pure reasoning and logic. No preconceived notions, no premonitions. Some claim that there is no other scientist of equivalent stature between him and Einstein. He tells the story of early thinking human beings and how they questioned the nature of their own being and the universe at large. We as humans have existed for 200,0000 years but learnt to read and write only 7000 years back. The first thinkers were perhaps Ionians (present day Turkey). It deals with the questions early Ionians asked for example, as humans infants cannot take care of themselves, the first humans would not have surfaced as infants. He then argues that as the philosophers have failed to answer the question of life and universe, the scientists have to do their part. The book takes you to a tour de force of subatomic physics and the laws of forces which govern them and how we came to know about it all. There are four major forces in nature, electromagnetic, week nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravity. It was very gratifying and I felt proud to see the name of Abdus Salam in the book. He is credited with the theory of week nuclear forces.This force is responsible for the radioactivity and plays a vital role in the formation of elements in stars and early universe. He and others theorized that in 1967, were awarded Nobel in 1979. The W and Z particles which he theorized were observed however only in 1983. It is now known that the universe is expanding. It leads to a simple question. Going back, it would have been almost nothing. As more we understand the way the nature works, the less one has to burden the gods and heavenly beings for the work of nature. He, contrary to my preconceived bias of Hawkings, does not make an aggressive attempt to discredit god. He merely makes an argument that spontaneous creation is a possibility. It is a marvellously easy read for the level of complex theoretical physics it teaches you along the way; all the way to the ultimate 11-dimensional M- theory, the candidate theory about everything. Nasir Gondal

What a brillant way to start the year with a book that could already easily be one of my best reads in Non-Fiction this year. The main thesis of the book is to explore the reason for the existance of the universe, and, largely to discuss whether the universe is created by some intelligent being (God) or a product arising of natural laws, when all around us increasing evidence suggests a Universe made up of an Intelligent Design. Hawking feeds into your inner childlike curiosity, and pacifies the part of you which yearns to learn about grand things even without having a background or expertise in something like Cosmology or Astonomy. His brilliance lies in the fact that how succintly with his profound understanding he can bring up topics like black holes, consciousness, nature of reality etc. and then go on describing them eloquently with simple and beautiful explanations. The book has been a joy to read, thought provoking in a way which will alight every neuron in your brain. Not someting you'd read and forget in passing; it will make you stop to ponder and think. As I said earlier, could'nt have started the year with a better read.

Un gran libro de vulgarizacion científica, que necesita un minimo de formación científica para poder entenderlo. Me gusto mucho y lo aconsejo.

Difficult to understand but ,if you were a physician title says what is inside the book

la liberté de la pensée scientifique, bien que depuis qu'il l'a écrit les choses et connaissances ont évolué, le texte reste d'un intérêt majeur et il est écrit avec beaucoup de souci pédagogique, compréhensible pour le novice.

Il libro è veramente fenomenale, spiegato con il solito stile irresistibile di Hawking. Un must per gli appassionati del genere. Inoltre impaginazione ottima su carta spessa e con illustrazioni a colori. Veramente ben fatto.