Playing With Planets

by Gerard 't Hooft

If you think the future is a mystery, think again. With a solid foothold in realism, an extraordinary insight into scientific and technological developments, and a dry sense of humor, Nobel laureate Professor Gerard 't Hooft confidently dissects fact from fiction and shows us what our future might really hold. Professor 't Hooft takes the reader firmly by the hand and, within the boundaries of solid physics and proven laws of nature, takes us on a ride into the world of the future, which holds remarkable surprises for us all. “Do you dream of intergalaxy space travel, time warps, and mini-mes?” 't Hooft asks. “Then please, get yourself some more science fiction books, for fiction it is. But for those who are interested in the real world, let me tell you what we CAN expect for the future.” We meet robots with a sense of irony, ride elevators into space, and build floating cities; let us just say that Playing with Planets, which is translated from the original Dutch edition by Professor 't Hooft's daughter Saskia, supports the old adage that truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

Genres: Science

152 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 1, 206

About the author

Gerard 't Hooft Professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Shared 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics

Reviews

[James · Rating 1 out of 5]

Simply awful. The author is a Nobel laureate, and that implies that he is a knowledgeable scientific thinker; the title implies that this will be a whimsical read. Neither is true.
Throughout this short (just over 100 pages) book, Dr. 't Hooft repeatedly expresses his scorn for science fiction, treating the entire genre as a homogenous whole embodied by the cheesiest cliches of the pulps from decades ago and of low-budget film and TV SF. It's clear from reading this that he hasn't read much modern or serious SF - he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
His condescension extends to entertainment in general, as, for example, he sniffs disdainfully at the idea that there could be any value to the film "Jurassic Park" beyond the questionable science. Apparently he has no interest in any of the themes or ethical questions raised, and as far as he's concerned that means it's pointless for everyone.
Throughout this book he also makes frequent statements about scientific facts that are outdated or just plain mistaken. For example, he announces that Kevlar is stronger than spider silk, when in fact the opposite is often true, though not always given the variabilities in spider silk. He often expresses his own opinions or interests as facts, not seeming to give any credence to the possibility that in subjective matters, such as a desire to explore space in person, there is any valid attitude except his own - he would not be interested in going in person but would want to use remote-controlled machines a la the Mars rovers; therefore, he asserts, no one would want to go in person. This egocentric perspective expands to take in the entire galaxy, as he asserts that since he feels the way to explore space beyond our solar system is with self-replicating machines, that is the only way any sentient species would do it; and that if they did, they would come here, and they haven't, so there is no intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy (he also posits without support the idea that the environmental conditions on Earth are the only ones that could support life, and that the development of life from amino acids is so unlikely that it almost certainly would never have happened anywhere else. He apparently didn't look into extant research on the origins of life which revealed that given the environmental factors present on early Earth - the presence of certain chemicals, which we know were here, and lightning storms - the appearance of the simplest life is not only plausible but likely to have happened over and over.
Dr. 't Hooft not only doesn't know his life sciences or the genre of science fiction, at one point he even makes a basic error in physics, his own field! He asserts that when a spaceship that had accelerated to a high velocity needed to slow down upon nearing another stellar system, it would be unable to use its normal propulsion system because there would be nothing for a rocket to push against in the vacuum of interstellar space. If that were true, it would have been impossible for any of the Apollo astronauts who went to the Moon (all of them from Apollo 11 on, except for Apollo 13) to land there, since the Moon has no appreciable atmosphere, and none of the American or Soviet manned spacecraft would have been able to slow down outside Earth's atmosphere on the way home.
Throw in the often clunky translation from the original Dutch to English, and the overall result is a waste of the money spent to buy this book and the time spent to read it. What a disappointment.

[Nick Gotch · Rating 3 out of 5]

To start with, "Playing with the Planets" is an English translation to a Dutch book so while it's pretty well written it might not read as fluidly as native English books do.

I decided to read it because Dr. 't Hooft is a favorite physicist of mine and I wanted to learn a little more about his ideas and thoughts on things. That's exactly what this is, an unfiltered editorial where he presents his opinions on various ideas usually brought up by the science-fiction genre.

Unlike writings by many other popular physicists what you get here is a much more pessimistic, and probably more realistic, picture of what technology of the future could be. I read a lot of the reviews of this book criticizing the author for being too down on what science-fiction often lets us think. It's true, he is very pessimistic when it comes to most of the outrageous ideas that come from fiction. That said, there's also a lot of interesting ideas, like Neumann-bots and the revival of airships that are more realistic and still exciting.

I definitely agree that 't Hooft leans pretty firmly toward an extreme realist view. Personally I'm more optimistic than that and think his stance is a bit too restricted. That said, this is a good book to counter a lot of the much more ridiculous stuff out there that leans in the other direction.

What I gained from reading this book is an understanding of many of the obstacles that mean the technology advances we see in fiction have a long way to go, if at all. His reasoning for why there may not be other intelligent life in this galaxy makes a lot of sense (but certainly doesn't rule it out for other galaxies.)

The book was definitely worth the read for me. If you're someone who just wants to believe in sci-fi dreams without any doubts, it won't be good for you (rather, it might be good for you, but you might not like it.) In the end, it can be a bit of a downer but if you're serious about science and the future of technology, it provides a nice counterbalance to much of the other stuff you might read.

[Ümit Mutlu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kitap aslında beklediğim gibi değildi ama sanırım bu o kadar kötü de değildi. Yazar daha çok, "mevcut bilimsel bilgilerimizle daha fazlasını nasıl yapabiliriz"i araştırmış, düşünmüş. Fikirleri de hayli yaratıcı aslında. Teorik olarak ne kadar mümkünler bilmiyorum -o mümkün diyor tabii- ama yazar pek çok yerde "bilimkurgular da çok abartıyor yea" dese de kendi fikirleri de azımsanmayacak ölçüde radikal ve yaratıcı.

Sevdim.

[Olivier · Rating 2 out of 5]

Frustratingly reductionist. No sense of the unpredictable, chaotic nature of evolution. Finite resources, climate change, exponential population growth will make the future much less linear than 't Hooft depicts. Even though he claims he doesn't, he really makes a lot of the same arrogant statements that 19th century physicists were making regarding the end of science.

[Joseph Campagna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Physics isn't my strong suit, yet this was an excellent briefing into the field and the future applications of realistic tech advancement. I imagine a Lunar Hotel built by academia-aided 'Cambots' will be possible before the end of the century.

I also think his inferences on space travel are realistic and sobering for most, and still relevant today. Humans are not meant to be out in intra-solar or interstellar, intergalactic space, etc. We need to develop self-replicating Neumannbots to do the job, and if further technological ingenuity pulls through, we ought to be able to telecommunicate with our self-replicating successors and receive updates from them. Although, this is not necessary for the optimization of empiricism. It would only be nice for humans to keep in contact with their creation.

[Erdogan Cicek · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bilim kurgu olarak işlenen pek çok konunun ,güncel bilimsel verilerle mümkün olup olamayacağını güzel bir dille anlatmış.. ancak yazar nobel ödüllü parçacık (yüksek enerji) fizikçisi olarak konulara her ne kadar hakim de olsa bu konuda yazılanlar, yazıldıktan çok kısa bir süre sonra dahi güncelliğini kaybederek hafif bir naftalin kokusu hissi veriyor.. Bu tarz yazılar günlük yada haftalık yayın araçlarında yada youtube da yer alsa daha taze tüketilebilir ve konuların daha iyi tartışılmasına ve evrilmesine imkan verebilir...Kitapta daha donuk kalmış..

[Jc Olsen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Oops: “I am referring to modern techniques, among other things, used by researchers to establish the order of amino acid molecules in DNA chains of living organisms.” P. 109

[Firat Tarman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kitabın ismi "Bilim Kurguları" ama, bilimkurgu ile bir ilgisi yok. "Bilimsel temellere dayanan gelecek tasarımları" üzerine. O nedenle de bilimkurgu romanlarından alışık olduğumuz fantastik buluşlar, yolculuklar ya da öyküler üzerine bir kitap değil bu.

Yazarı, Nobel ödüllü teorik fizikçi, Hollandalı Gerard't Hooft. Teorik fizikçi bir bilim adamının öykü anlatır gibi anlatması pek görülmüş bir şey değil. Ancak Hooft'un da örneğin bir Carl Sagan gibi akıcı ve sıkılmadan okuyacağınız bir kitap yazabildiğini söylersem haksızlık yapmış olurum.

Yorumun tamamı : http://www.teknomani.com/2015/01/kita...

[Nate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good, but I know 't Hooft is capable of better.

[Lawliet]

alright

[Naeem · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hollow imagination.

[Suki · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,5