A Briefer History of Time: Stephen Hawking

This book has the capacity to amaze – on two levels. First, at the complexity and elegance of the universe; secondly, at man's confidence over centuries, always thinking that his latest set of theories has given him almost complete understanding of our amazing universe.New readings and new theories over the last fifty years or so have taken this always changing almost complete understanding beyond the reach of the ordinary man. Here, a valiant attempt is made to simplify matters by using examples of moving trains and bouncing balls, but the basic concepts are difficult. Particularly when there is still so much we don't know, about infinity and relativity, the shape of time and space, the basic components of the universe – and their behaviour.And of course, all current theories are based on measurements and extrapolations taken over a mere few decades in our one tiny corner of the universe. But that doesn't dent the confidence of the authors, who reckon we have an almost complete understanding of the universe and our place in it. Just like Newton, Galileo, Aristotle and the rest.If you want to know about strings, waves, particles, black holes and the rest, this will certainly help. Or you could read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where the answer to the ultimate question is much more simple – if somewhat enigmatic.

The sequence of books from Hawking published, by Bantam Press, materialised in following order: “A Brief History of Time” (1988), “The Universe in a Nutshell” (2001), “A Briefer History of Time” (2005, co-author Leonard Mlodinow).I acquired each book in that order. This review is specifically directed at “A Brief History of Time” for my remarks here could be applied to all three books without much in the way of modification. (I came by the later books in response to students of mine who appeared to think I hadn’t quite grasped Hacking’s message!)Both “The Universe in a Nutshell” (2001), “A Briefer History of Time” are lavishly produced books containing coloured illustrations, in the case of the latter somewhat trifling in appearance (e.g. page 21).All three books include a Glossary, none of which give a definition for particle, cosmos or universe, though “cosmology” is said to be “The study of the universe as a whole”. This latter is rather pointless since the word “universe” implies “everything” in one sense.And so to “A Brief History of Time”.This 220 page book was published as a paperback by Bantam Books in 1988. By then the author was well launched to the world as a celebrity.I cannot quite recall how and when I came to have a copy of the book, but I certainly began to give it a comprehensive reappraisal when preparing my lecture “What Universe?” for BBC Radio Orkney in 2017. (I gave my first lectures on this topic in the early 1960s.)There are four promotional pages at the front of the book. To sample the character of these snippets here is one from “Newsday”: ‘He has certainly done more to make the idea of big bang and the beginning of the universe coherent and thinkable than any physicist since Einstein . . . The reader can’t help but imagine that if Einstein had tried to write a book for non-physicists, it might have been like this’On page 152 we have from Hawking himself: “I’d like to emphasize that this idea that time and space should be finite without boundary is just a proposal: it cannot be deduced from some other principle.”Comment: “finite” (from the OED): having bounds, ends, or limits; bounded, limited; opposed to infinite.In other words, Hawking’s statement is a nonsense.I have to admit that for me much of what Hawking expresses in words is either clumsy or plain silly, as with his notion for a “theory of everything”. He certainly had a bee in his bonnet on this one for in the introduction to his later book, “The Universe in a Nutshell”, he writes: "In 1988 when A Brief History of Time was first published, the ultimate Theory of Everything seemed to be just over the horizon".Likewise his attitude to philosophy, thus: "Philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments in science. As a result scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." [Eureka (The Times) Issue 12 September 2010—Science, Life, The Planet.]This, despite his frequent dallying with metaphysics!Amazon’s Hawking page has this to offer:“STEPHEN HAWKING was a brilliant theoretical physicist and is generally considered to have been one of the world's greatest thinkers. He held the position of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for thirty years and is the author of A Brief History of Time which was an international bestseller.”“World's greatest thinkers”? In my opinion such comparisons are generally valueless and no more so than here.However, it might be worth considering what another great thinker, Bertrand Russell, had to say on beginnings and endings: “The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. (Bertrand Russell 1927)Unfortunately we are no wiser, after reading this book, as to what Hawking has in mind for a concept of “time”.Here is a quote from another, more recent book featuring a number of writers’ ideas on time and so forth:"What is the true nature of space and time? These concepts are at the heart of science, and are often taken for granted even by practicing scientists, but, as this volume explains, they remain deeply wrapped in enigma." (From: Connes, Alain et al. "On Space and Time" C.U.P. 2008)Regrettably “big bang” is generally proffered by its disciples, and others, as a non-negotiable fact, which, of course, it is not. Find an alternative, credible explanation for the red shift then cosmologists may rid themselves of the structural model for “universe” and go, perhaps, for a process instead?The book has three, brief but interesting biographical entries at the end on Galileo, Einstein and Newton. Newton could be a bit of a trial, as is no better sampled in his arrogant attitude towards John Flamsteed, the first Astronomer Royal. Indeed some insight into our thinking on matters cosmological may well be gained from Flamsteed’s devotion to observational astronomy. (He was the first to utilize the telescope as “sights” for his precision instruments, thereby increasing the accuracy in positional observations several fold.)The following extract from the late Stephen Hawking in conversation with Pallab Ghosh of the BBC News, 12 April 2016 is worthy of note. (Hawking had notions for the exploration of space by humans in person.). . . Prof Hawking believes that what was once a distant dream can and must become a reality within 30 years."There are no greater heights to aspire to than the stars. It is unwise to keep all our eggs in one fragile basket," he told BBC News."Life on Earth faces dangers from astronomical events like asteroids or supernovas".Unquote.But asteroids and supernovae are to be found throughout our galaxy, The Milky Way, so what was Hawking thinking to escape from?! Ghosh should have questioned Hawking on this point, should he not?

As its name suggests, this is a shorter, and less technical, version of the great scientist's most famous work, which I have read to mark his recent passing. It covers in fairly crisp form the main historical developments in our understanding of the history of the universe, and the nature of time and space, and sub-atomic physics. In places, it still got a bit too technical for a lay reader like me, but for the most part offered a fairly easily digestible summary of some mind-blowing theories and chains of reasoning. This is mind-expanding stuff, that puts our concerns on planet Earth into a unique perspective. The diagrams I thought were not very good, though.

I finished this book with an appreciation of the creative brilliance of so many scientists who are able to imagine then postulate theorems about why stuff happens and why this journey into knowledge is so opaque. It's not necessary to understand all the ideas set out in this book - I didn't! But I got some of them thanks to the clear writing. But it's the big picture that came across with great clarity. Making the book "briefer" I'm sure helped in this regard. Detailed scientific rationale is important, but not in this book which aims to spread the word about science to folk, like me, whose ability to absorb high brow science is limited.

The intellect and the presentation of such complex of issues beyond much of normal understanding is breathtaking. Yes, of course there are aspects which challenge your own IQ to be able to follow. But this is a book to read. Don't approach it like a thriller where you can skim along and follow the twists and turns of the plot relatively easily, a page turner. There are parts of this book where you can get caught up in the sheer grandeur of the discoveries and propositions. You read quicker. But take time to absorb the concepts and keep it as a book to return to over time, and marvel at the minds, of those who wrote it and those whose earlier work, often with primitive tools, laid the foundation for the discoveries it lays before you. Heck! I even understand the significance of E=Mc2 and how nothing can go faster than light - me!