What do you think?
Rate this book
Now: The Physics of Time
A monumental work on the flow of time, from the universe’s creation to “now,” by the best-selling author of Physics for Future Presidents.
“Now” is a simple concept—you’re reading this sentence now. Yet a real definition of “now” has eluded even the great Einstein. We know that time stretches and is affected by gravity and velocity. Yet, as eminent physicist Richard A. Muller points out, it is only today that we have all the physics at hand—relativity, entropy, entanglement, antimatter, and the Big Bang—to explain the flow of time. With these building blocks in place, Muller reaches a startling conclusion: our expanding universe is continuously creating not only new space but also new time. The front edge of this new time is what we call “now,” and this moment is truly unique—it is the only moment in which we can exercise our free will. Muller’s thought-provoking vision is a powerful counter to established theories in science and philosophy, and his arguments will spark major debate about the most fundamental assumptions of our universe.
“Now” is a simple concept—you’re reading this sentence now. Yet a real definition of “now” has eluded even the great Einstein. We know that time stretches and is affected by gravity and velocity. Yet, as eminent physicist Richard A. Muller points out, it is only today that we have all the physics at hand—relativity, entropy, entanglement, antimatter, and the Big Bang—to explain the flow of time. With these building blocks in place, Muller reaches a startling conclusion: our expanding universe is continuously creating not only new space but also new time. The front edge of this new time is what we call “now,” and this moment is truly unique—it is the only moment in which we can exercise our free will. Muller’s thought-provoking vision is a powerful counter to established theories in science and philosophy, and his arguments will spark major debate about the most fundamental assumptions of our universe.
364 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 2016
367 people are currently reading
3092 people want to read
About the author
Richard A. Muller
47 books154 followersRichard A. Muller is professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a past winner of the MacArthur Fellowship. His popular science book Physics for Future Presidents and academic textbook Physics and Technology for Future Presidents are based on his renowned course for non-science students. He lives in Berkeley, California.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 183 reviews
March 16, 2017
I really can't imagine how any one could recommend this book. There was not one topic in this book where I had not read about elsewhere. An author should always add something new to the topic if they are going to write a book on a topic. Especially, if the topic is as interesting as 'now'. The author knows infinitely more physics than I'll ever know, but he doesn't show it anywhere in this book. I would bet there wasn't a single matter of fact within his book on physics which I had not read elsewhere.
Also, when he strayed from his expertise he really ends up talking about things he barely understands. He doesn't know philosophy but tries to weave it into the story. (Hegel says in his introduction to the "Phenomenology' that 'any shoe salesman thinks they know philosophy', of course, that could also include writers of book reviews or physicist who write books with nothing new. Speaking of Hegel, how can someone be talking about the philosophy of 'now' and not give Hegel's definition as the "indeterminate immediate'?). Einstein's block universe takes time out of the universe, Henri Bergson doesn't like simultaneity. Bergson has a point. Einstein would even claim that his 'original sin' was tying a physical clock to the speed of light. For a wonderful book, but, regretfully, philosophical, see the audible book of "The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time" by Canales. I only mention this, because the author never mentions Bergson in his book, and I can't imagine anyone writing a philosophical physics type book on 'now' not mentioning Bergson.
He did another thing that always irritates me. He quoted from many philosophers such as Kant, and it was clear he had not read the author's book that he was mentioning, "Critique of Pure Reason" (or at least not had read him in recent years). I like Kant. I've read him recently. There just seemed to be a shallowness with the author when he brought philosophy into the story.
The author doesn't like 'physicalism'. He'll capitalize it to make it a religion. He'll say atheist that believe in Physicalism have made it a a religion. It just seemed like a comic book straw man characterization he was developing. He brings up Hume (probably my favorite philosopher). Hume knows that we never see the cause just the effect. Hume is probably best characterized as a materialist instead of a physicalist but there are similarities, but Hume knows that, for example, the gravity that holds a vase on the table is never seen. Hume would say that the gravity is not real, but we conjecture it. The author never got beyond the surface when he talked about complex philosophical problems that are mentioned in this book such as cause and effect, free will, the soul, determinism and the flow of time itself. The author brought up Karl Popper and his falsification criterion. For one thing, when one does that they should always add the words 'in principle' after the word 'falsification'. Another thing, science has multiple values for a reason, because there are always ad hoc hypothesis which one can add to make ones theory seem correct. I really felt that the author needed to read a good book on the topic such as "Philosophy of Science" by Curd.
There are better books on audible on this topic. The author showed a lack of depth on philosophy. I did not learn anything new from reading this book and an author should always assume their reader is interested in the topic and tell them things they didn't already know. I wish I had built a time machine and was able to read this review and then save myself from having read this book which is nothing more than a rehash of stuff told in other books.
Also, when he strayed from his expertise he really ends up talking about things he barely understands. He doesn't know philosophy but tries to weave it into the story. (Hegel says in his introduction to the "Phenomenology' that 'any shoe salesman thinks they know philosophy', of course, that could also include writers of book reviews or physicist who write books with nothing new. Speaking of Hegel, how can someone be talking about the philosophy of 'now' and not give Hegel's definition as the "indeterminate immediate'?). Einstein's block universe takes time out of the universe, Henri Bergson doesn't like simultaneity. Bergson has a point. Einstein would even claim that his 'original sin' was tying a physical clock to the speed of light. For a wonderful book, but, regretfully, philosophical, see the audible book of "The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time" by Canales. I only mention this, because the author never mentions Bergson in his book, and I can't imagine anyone writing a philosophical physics type book on 'now' not mentioning Bergson.
He did another thing that always irritates me. He quoted from many philosophers such as Kant, and it was clear he had not read the author's book that he was mentioning, "Critique of Pure Reason" (or at least not had read him in recent years). I like Kant. I've read him recently. There just seemed to be a shallowness with the author when he brought philosophy into the story.
The author doesn't like 'physicalism'. He'll capitalize it to make it a religion. He'll say atheist that believe in Physicalism have made it a a religion. It just seemed like a comic book straw man characterization he was developing. He brings up Hume (probably my favorite philosopher). Hume knows that we never see the cause just the effect. Hume is probably best characterized as a materialist instead of a physicalist but there are similarities, but Hume knows that, for example, the gravity that holds a vase on the table is never seen. Hume would say that the gravity is not real, but we conjecture it. The author never got beyond the surface when he talked about complex philosophical problems that are mentioned in this book such as cause and effect, free will, the soul, determinism and the flow of time itself. The author brought up Karl Popper and his falsification criterion. For one thing, when one does that they should always add the words 'in principle' after the word 'falsification'. Another thing, science has multiple values for a reason, because there are always ad hoc hypothesis which one can add to make ones theory seem correct. I really felt that the author needed to read a good book on the topic such as "Philosophy of Science" by Curd.
There are better books on audible on this topic. The author showed a lack of depth on philosophy. I did not learn anything new from reading this book and an author should always assume their reader is interested in the topic and tell them things they didn't already know. I wish I had built a time machine and was able to read this review and then save myself from having read this book which is nothing more than a rehash of stuff told in other books.
April 27, 2017
A supremely embarrassing book by the lamest science popularizer around. I should have learned my lesson with the incredibly boring Physics for Future Presidents, but I forgot the author's name.
If you want to learn about the concept of "now", that fleeting sensation of the present moment, this is not the book where you will learn anything, new or not. Muller's thesis is simple, stated at the beginning and again at the end of the book as some sort of big reveal: "now" is the feeling of new time being constantly created by the Big Bang (just like space is always being created by the Big Bang). No explanations, no evidence, nothing.
The rest of the book is the same old, constantly regurgitated episodes: the cat, the Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein saying that his universal constant was his biggest blunder, Dirac, Eddington, blah blah blah.
He does present some very interesting new ways for thinking about entropy, but that's about it. The last two chapters are unbelievable: timidly, skulking, tip-toeing, Muller posits the existence of a spiritual realm and defends (weakly but clearly) the thesis that non-physical phenomena exist, right after calling physicalism a religion.
I wish I was making this up.
He also tackles the problem of free will and empathy (he apparently tackled every topic except "NOW") in such an amateurish, parochial manner, that one cannot help but think that he hasn't read the first book about neuroscience. Scientists shipwrecked in their own islands of wisdom.
Thoroughly disappointing and a waste of time.
If you want to learn about the concept of "now", that fleeting sensation of the present moment, this is not the book where you will learn anything, new or not. Muller's thesis is simple, stated at the beginning and again at the end of the book as some sort of big reveal: "now" is the feeling of new time being constantly created by the Big Bang (just like space is always being created by the Big Bang). No explanations, no evidence, nothing.
The rest of the book is the same old, constantly regurgitated episodes: the cat, the Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein saying that his universal constant was his biggest blunder, Dirac, Eddington, blah blah blah.
He does present some very interesting new ways for thinking about entropy, but that's about it. The last two chapters are unbelievable: timidly, skulking, tip-toeing, Muller posits the existence of a spiritual realm and defends (weakly but clearly) the thesis that non-physical phenomena exist, right after calling physicalism a religion.
I wish I was making this up.
He also tackles the problem of free will and empathy (he apparently tackled every topic except "NOW") in such an amateurish, parochial manner, that one cannot help but think that he hasn't read the first book about neuroscience. Scientists shipwrecked in their own islands of wisdom.
Thoroughly disappointing and a waste of time.
April 8, 2017
Um livro de física bem denso, mas muito bem explicado, que revisa de física quântica à cosmologia ao livre-arbítrio, para explicar de onde vem a sensação de tempo e do agora. Nunca tinha pensado sobre o agora, o momento em que vivemos, foi uma ótima reflexão.
Muller trabalhou com física pesada e muita gente competente e entende muito bem do que explica. Simplifica o suficiente para um biólogo entender os conceitos e deixa o cálculo para o absolutamente necessário. A parte sobre como pensamos e livre-arbítrio é um pouco bobinha perto da explicação física, mas casa muito bem com o conteúdo.
Ele contrasta explicações anteriores para o tempo (a entropia de Eddington), para propor sua própria hipótese verificável: de que o tempo é criado junto com o espaço na expansão cósmica. O que tb publicou mais formalmente em artigos. Vale acompanhar se confirmam. Só não deu para ouvir tão acelerado, já que o conteúdo é pesado.
Muller trabalhou com física pesada e muita gente competente e entende muito bem do que explica. Simplifica o suficiente para um biólogo entender os conceitos e deixa o cálculo para o absolutamente necessário. A parte sobre como pensamos e livre-arbítrio é um pouco bobinha perto da explicação física, mas casa muito bem com o conteúdo.
Ele contrasta explicações anteriores para o tempo (a entropia de Eddington), para propor sua própria hipótese verificável: de que o tempo é criado junto com o espaço na expansão cósmica. O que tb publicou mais formalmente em artigos. Vale acompanhar se confirmam. Só não deu para ouvir tão acelerado, já que o conteúdo é pesado.
December 10, 2016
It should be titled "Pride and Prejudice" did someone use that already?
This book is not named correctly. Very little of the book can really be said to relate to the title. There are two points that resulted in me downgrading the persuasiveness of the book and they relate to the authors disposition shining through. Firstly, he is stuck in the perennial and parochial theorist/experimenter friction. He knows well that it is the current technology deficit that precludes experiments to falsify theory's which depend on probing to a smaller scale with so far unattainable energies, these deficits may or may not be overcome (experimenters job) but this surely is not a reason to suspend theoretical physics or to constrain its creative imperative which his (well provided elsewhere) history so clearly demonstrates the success of. Secondly, and more damning though is the statement around "his soul" that if you don't agree with him then you don't understand what he is talking about.
There are many circular arguments and internal inconsistencies which I believe above two examples are striking enough to undermine the authors credibility. Mostly arising from not only an anthropocentric view but more ignorantly a western educated view from privilege, he even cites QE2 as an inspirational figure that influenced his child's name (Dante has a special place in hell for those inspired by the outcome of arbitrary benefits at birth afforded to no other). Whether we have free will or not in the exceptionally limited area where it may manifest itself (about 30% of thought is ever expressed by the thinker, I suppose much less has material consequence) is irrelevant on the scale of the universe (about 2 trillion galaxies observable). We cannot decide to be hungry or thirsty or in a fatal accident etc. That we can decide what to eat (if we have means) is surely of fractional importance compared to the uncontrollable nature of hunger (hunger clearly arises from fundamental physics). Over the grand passage of universal time Achims razor I feel would tend toward human free will as a statistical irrelevance rather than Mueller's soul; but who knows? Nobody at present!.
Ultimately as I've seen before he falls victim to the crimes of those he accuses, in this I mean he believes what he wants to believe rather than the implications of current evidence to hand, except unlike a true scientist he makes statements like above which preclude further progress on the topic. It does not matter what blue looks like or what a word sounds like. It matters that we understand its meaning, only 100 words are shared across all languages, but they all create poetry, literature, comedy etc. It's the shared understanding not the intrinsic letters or sounds that matters. By the way Mr Mueller math does probe poetry, art, music and language in all kinds of fascinating patterns (eg. see Ziph's law). In order for language to emerge it simply must have sprung from a well where humans acted and thought without it (see Noam Chomsky). I think he deeply confuses at a fundamental level the difference between understanding the cosmos and its physics with understanding our place in it and whether its consequential or not, from this misunderstanding he launches wholly unwarranted and disingenuous criticisms on other people and others opinions. The references used are scify movies sprinkled with (as is usual in physics books) very selective Greek philosopher quotations, without contextualizing them or asking himself what would those great thinkers believe today with the accumulated knowledge we make our views upon?
A very illuminating example of his either deliberate or worse his understanding of evolution is so poor he should not be commenting on it in a book he wants people to pay for; is using evolution to demonstrate free will by making the nonsense conclusion that the contradictory consequences of altruism prove his point. Any book on the subject (whether by Dawkins or not) will clearly show the imperfections of evolution, 99% of species are extinct, need more proof than that? No evolutionary biologist claims it a perfect system only that it's potentially a perfect explanation when completed but very impressive right now and continuously affirmed by observation and study of the fossil record. Furthermore he should know (and probably does) that genes can work in concert and their expression can be triggered by environment as well as internally with many unintended consequences that are either deleterious, irrelevant or positive for genes survival. Also culturally (mainly through lies from leaders about better futures) ideas can dominate even though again deleterious, irrelevant or positive to society, religion being a fine example, make your own choice?
I would not recommend this book to anyone interested in the physics of time. Its a short history from Einstein to today loosely harping back to time almost as if he realizes he's miles off topic, added to this a list of the unknowns or unknowable's plus his dogma for good measure. I'd strongly recommend Alan Lightman (the accidental universe) for the fine prose version, Lee Smollin (Time Reborn) for the physics of time and What we cannot know by Alan du Sautoy on the subject of scientific limts and David Deutsch (Beginning of Infinity) for the lack of them. Then make up your own mind which will feel better than accepting this dogma on faith.
An emphatic 1-star. The real reason for the book appears to be a dog whistle to claim science is religion after he "ranted" that hijacking words is almost criminal. And therefore science and religion are equivalent and one not preeminent over the other in terms of enlightening us about reality. All the Augustinian quotes underline the subtlety of the persuasion being attempted. If science is a religion it is surely one without dogma if practiced according to its method, it only preaches the seeking of knowledge where it can be sought, it never suggests violence to opposing views or blind faith where zero evidence exists. Claiming kinship at least intellectually to Richard Feynman seems a prerequisite to get published these days, I doubt Dr Feynman would find much to agree with in the conclusions and assertions in this book. I particularly remember seeing him on YouTube complain that audiences to science are always looking for the unknown instead of appreciating how far knowledge has come and trying to assimilate it and gain understanding of our current approximation. With a completely open mind to what may come that disproves or sharpens that approximation. (See Beauty, Richard Feynman on YouTube and Horizon Feynman meets Hoyle also YouTube)
This book is not named correctly. Very little of the book can really be said to relate to the title. There are two points that resulted in me downgrading the persuasiveness of the book and they relate to the authors disposition shining through. Firstly, he is stuck in the perennial and parochial theorist/experimenter friction. He knows well that it is the current technology deficit that precludes experiments to falsify theory's which depend on probing to a smaller scale with so far unattainable energies, these deficits may or may not be overcome (experimenters job) but this surely is not a reason to suspend theoretical physics or to constrain its creative imperative which his (well provided elsewhere) history so clearly demonstrates the success of. Secondly, and more damning though is the statement around "his soul" that if you don't agree with him then you don't understand what he is talking about.
There are many circular arguments and internal inconsistencies which I believe above two examples are striking enough to undermine the authors credibility. Mostly arising from not only an anthropocentric view but more ignorantly a western educated view from privilege, he even cites QE2 as an inspirational figure that influenced his child's name (Dante has a special place in hell for those inspired by the outcome of arbitrary benefits at birth afforded to no other). Whether we have free will or not in the exceptionally limited area where it may manifest itself (about 30% of thought is ever expressed by the thinker, I suppose much less has material consequence) is irrelevant on the scale of the universe (about 2 trillion galaxies observable). We cannot decide to be hungry or thirsty or in a fatal accident etc. That we can decide what to eat (if we have means) is surely of fractional importance compared to the uncontrollable nature of hunger (hunger clearly arises from fundamental physics). Over the grand passage of universal time Achims razor I feel would tend toward human free will as a statistical irrelevance rather than Mueller's soul; but who knows? Nobody at present!.
Ultimately as I've seen before he falls victim to the crimes of those he accuses, in this I mean he believes what he wants to believe rather than the implications of current evidence to hand, except unlike a true scientist he makes statements like above which preclude further progress on the topic. It does not matter what blue looks like or what a word sounds like. It matters that we understand its meaning, only 100 words are shared across all languages, but they all create poetry, literature, comedy etc. It's the shared understanding not the intrinsic letters or sounds that matters. By the way Mr Mueller math does probe poetry, art, music and language in all kinds of fascinating patterns (eg. see Ziph's law). In order for language to emerge it simply must have sprung from a well where humans acted and thought without it (see Noam Chomsky). I think he deeply confuses at a fundamental level the difference between understanding the cosmos and its physics with understanding our place in it and whether its consequential or not, from this misunderstanding he launches wholly unwarranted and disingenuous criticisms on other people and others opinions. The references used are scify movies sprinkled with (as is usual in physics books) very selective Greek philosopher quotations, without contextualizing them or asking himself what would those great thinkers believe today with the accumulated knowledge we make our views upon?
A very illuminating example of his either deliberate or worse his understanding of evolution is so poor he should not be commenting on it in a book he wants people to pay for; is using evolution to demonstrate free will by making the nonsense conclusion that the contradictory consequences of altruism prove his point. Any book on the subject (whether by Dawkins or not) will clearly show the imperfections of evolution, 99% of species are extinct, need more proof than that? No evolutionary biologist claims it a perfect system only that it's potentially a perfect explanation when completed but very impressive right now and continuously affirmed by observation and study of the fossil record. Furthermore he should know (and probably does) that genes can work in concert and their expression can be triggered by environment as well as internally with many unintended consequences that are either deleterious, irrelevant or positive for genes survival. Also culturally (mainly through lies from leaders about better futures) ideas can dominate even though again deleterious, irrelevant or positive to society, religion being a fine example, make your own choice?
I would not recommend this book to anyone interested in the physics of time. Its a short history from Einstein to today loosely harping back to time almost as if he realizes he's miles off topic, added to this a list of the unknowns or unknowable's plus his dogma for good measure. I'd strongly recommend Alan Lightman (the accidental universe) for the fine prose version, Lee Smollin (Time Reborn) for the physics of time and What we cannot know by Alan du Sautoy on the subject of scientific limts and David Deutsch (Beginning of Infinity) for the lack of them. Then make up your own mind which will feel better than accepting this dogma on faith.
An emphatic 1-star. The real reason for the book appears to be a dog whistle to claim science is religion after he "ranted" that hijacking words is almost criminal. And therefore science and religion are equivalent and one not preeminent over the other in terms of enlightening us about reality. All the Augustinian quotes underline the subtlety of the persuasion being attempted. If science is a religion it is surely one without dogma if practiced according to its method, it only preaches the seeking of knowledge where it can be sought, it never suggests violence to opposing views or blind faith where zero evidence exists. Claiming kinship at least intellectually to Richard Feynman seems a prerequisite to get published these days, I doubt Dr Feynman would find much to agree with in the conclusions and assertions in this book. I particularly remember seeing him on YouTube complain that audiences to science are always looking for the unknown instead of appreciating how far knowledge has come and trying to assimilate it and gain understanding of our current approximation. With a completely open mind to what may come that disproves or sharpens that approximation. (See Beauty, Richard Feynman on YouTube and Horizon Feynman meets Hoyle also YouTube)
October 2, 2016
The sections on physics history and understanding (the first half of the book) are competent and in the style of Muller's very good "Physics for Future Presidents." But Muller's personal asides and grievances enter the scene until "Now" becomes a philosophical agenda book (which would be fine, but it's not the book described on the inside flap or by marketing).
This book should have been titled "Free Will: Physicalism Can't Explain it All," not "Now: The Physics of Time." The actual discussions of "Now" - and Muller's theory of it being created continually like new space - contain only a few paragraphs of information which he simply repeats over and over for about fifteen pages at the end.
A good editing pass was needed for "Now." Much of what Muller says in the last third of the book (about souls and free will) is unfocused and contradictory. Many of his asides don't contribute to the main theme (or, if they do, he did a poor job linking them).
I hugely recommend Muller's "Physics For Future Presidents," but would tell you to skip this one unless you're interested in a scientist's thoughts on free will.
This book should have been titled "Free Will: Physicalism Can't Explain it All," not "Now: The Physics of Time." The actual discussions of "Now" - and Muller's theory of it being created continually like new space - contain only a few paragraphs of information which he simply repeats over and over for about fifteen pages at the end.
A good editing pass was needed for "Now." Much of what Muller says in the last third of the book (about souls and free will) is unfocused and contradictory. Many of his asides don't contribute to the main theme (or, if they do, he did a poor job linking them).
I hugely recommend Muller's "Physics For Future Presidents," but would tell you to skip this one unless you're interested in a scientist's thoughts on free will.
March 15, 2019
Це першокласний науково-популярний матеріал, за виключенням, хіба що дуже суперечливого четвертого розділу, який, грунтується на світогляді автора. Більша частина книги містить дуже корисні і послідовні роздуми про природу часу і місце у ньому людини. Результати дуже переконливі. Якщо ви професійний фізик, то можете відразу насолоджуватись висновками кожного із розділів =) Для більшої ж частини читачів буде доречно ЗНАЙТИ ЧАС і прочитати книгу цілком.
October 22, 2016
If you were hoping to learn more about the author's hypothesis about "now", read only the Introduction. Every single thought he has specifically relating to his idea of "now" is spelled out in the Introduction. Throughout the entire book, he doesn't get any more specific about this concept. "Part V: Now" is literally a long-winded recap of parts I - IV, with the same frustratingly brief—and vague—description of "now" and the flow of time.
The rest of the book appears to be something of a "random walk" (to borrow a phrase he discusses, for some reason) through "an enormity of material," as he strangely warns us in his introduction. To be fair, it was clear to me that the author intended to (eventually) knit these seemingly poorly-related topics together. But he rarely offers more than a sideways glance in the direction he wants you to go.
Instead, he repeats himself—ad nauseam. I hate skimming books, especially books I am excited about. By the middle of this book, however, I found myself needing to skip whole paragraphs of repetitions, just to keep my thoughts straight.
The good news was that among his many repetitive ramblings, he manages to give a decent review of Relativity and Quantum physics. He offers several very useful alternative presentations for subjects that are usually more confusing than they need to be. If you've been interested in either of these topics, but frustrated with your unanswered questions, this book might actually help you. But only if you can wade through the rest of the book, of course.
The most frustrating (and seemingly pointless) part of this entire book, for me, at least, was his quixotic defense of "free will". He goes on and on about it, in multiple chapters. He absolutely rails against anyone who has ever claimed that the universe is purely deterministic, including Einstein—whom he otherwise clearly adores. But the very best argument he presents for the existence of free will is that physics can't (yet) rule it out, since pure determinism (which he derisively blames on physicalists, like Einstein) cannot withstand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Since two perfectly identical radioactive particles will behave differently, decaying at different times, their behavior is not purely determined by their past, but is instead random (within certain boundaries). And I'm not making this up, he actually "jokingly" suggests that those particles have "free will":
"I may not have free will," he quips, defensively, "but these [pi mesons] sure appear to have it," willfully conflating the concepts of "random" and "unpredictable". He's as serious as you'll let him be. For the author, it seems, "random behavior based on probabilistic functions" is where "free will" hides.
Despite the large amount of words dedicated to the subject, however, he never really comes around to the relevancy of his incessant rants on free will. The best we get is that:
"Now [the moment in time] is the only moment when we can exercise influence, the only moment when we can direct entropy away from ourselves so that we can orchestrate local entropy to decrease. Such local decrease is the source of expanded life and civilization. To direct entropy in that way, we must have free will—a capability that physicalists call an illusion, even though current quantum physics theory has similar behavior built into its essence."
Then, in the very next paragraph, after claiming that there is only one way for us to direct entropy (e.g. via free will), he goes on to discuss how free will could be falsified. He then throws in a completely random guess about someday finding a "special reference frame for causality," casually tossing out the Lemaître frame as a "top candidate". Full stop, end of discussion. Sure, let's go with that—whatever it takes to save his inexplicably precious free will.
On a few occasions, he throws someone under the bus for a crime he will soon commit himself. When discussing Dirac's prediction of the positron, he says, "it is much more comforting to discover that you can explain a previously known mystery, such as the magnetism of the electron, than to be forced to make a prediction [that the positron exists].... His defensive excuse that the 'probability [of experimentally finding the positron] is negligible' is wrong." Harsh, perhaps, but seemingly fair.
The author, however, is much more forgiving of his own limitations. After spending uncounted pages savagely railing against several pillars of science for suggesting theories that made the cardinal sin of not being falsifiable, and then finally—if vaguely—conveying his own theory, he dutifully makes an attempt to provide a theoretical method for falsifying his own theory. By his own admission, however, his first proposal for falsifying his theory encounters a problem that appears to be "intractable." Is he, too, guilty of the sin of hawking an unfalsifiable idea as a theory? Fear not, gentle reader. "[He takes] heart in the fact that when Dirac proposed his positron, he believed there was no way to detect it for the foreseeable future." So it's all good. Dirac started it.
I definitely enjoyed several parts of this book, most notably the parts that reviewed the inner workings of Relativity and quantum physics. I was consistently frustrated, however, by the author's personal tirades and seemingly frivolous tangents. It happens so often that on one occasion, the author finally asks for permission before beginning yet another rant, saying, "Excuse me for a moment while I rant about sciencespeak." He then launches into a completely irrelevant, brutal tirade:
"I ask, by what right does a scientist tell us that the American buffalo isn't a buffalo? Or that a spider is not an insect? Or that Pluto is not a planet? Scientists attempt to hijack these words and then tell us when we can and cannot use them. They didn't make up these words, so they don't have the right to narrow their definitions."
It baffles me why he thinks a scientists—a person who specifically and diligently seeks new understanding—should not be allowed to refine the words we use to discuss the world. But his brash stubbornness immediately gets worse:
"In my mind, an American buffalo is an American buffalo. In the 1600's, not only spiders but even earthworms and snails were called insects."
Is he suggesting that we should go back to a time when earthworms and snails were called insects? Perhaps he's reminding us that, since it used to be much worse, we should be fine with a little sloppiness in our current nomenclature. Whatever the case, though, he's not finished yet:
"I once had a mathematician tell me that I couldn't tie a knot in my shoelace, because by mathematical definition, anything that can be untied is not a knot!"
When this mathematician overlooks the homonyms of the word 'knot', presumably to highlight an interesting and distinguishing fact about knots in mathematics, rather than choosing to enjoy the academic exploration of mathematical knots, the author chooses to be insulted, or even offended. The knit-picky sciencespeak has gone too far for the author.
Yet, shortly after his blinding rant about scientists using sciencespeak to hijack words they didn't invent, he pulls the same trick in a chapter about black holes entitled, "Actually, There Are No Black Holes":
"Why do I say that there are no true black holes on the list [of black holes in Wikipedia]? Recall the calculation showing that it takes infinite time to fall into a black hole..." He goes on to say that, due to relativity, the matter that collapsed to form the black hole has not finished falling yet—and will never quite finish. He quickly apologizes, however:
"I am being somewhat pedantic. It takes forever to fall into a black hole, but you get pretty far in just a few minutes, in your own proper time measured by your own co-falling watch. From the outside frame you'll never reach the surface, but you'll be turned into a crepe-like object in relatively short order. So, in some sense, it hardly matters."
One mans outrageously offensive sciencespeak is another man's somewhat pedantic hijacking of words, it would seem.
There were, unfortunately, many, many frustrating, self-aggrandizing editorials throughout the book. That, it turns out, is a significant problem, since it can be difficult to distinguish between his opinion and helpful context.
For this reason alone, I recommend finding another book.
The rest of the book appears to be something of a "random walk" (to borrow a phrase he discusses, for some reason) through "an enormity of material," as he strangely warns us in his introduction. To be fair, it was clear to me that the author intended to (eventually) knit these seemingly poorly-related topics together. But he rarely offers more than a sideways glance in the direction he wants you to go.
Instead, he repeats himself—ad nauseam. I hate skimming books, especially books I am excited about. By the middle of this book, however, I found myself needing to skip whole paragraphs of repetitions, just to keep my thoughts straight.
The good news was that among his many repetitive ramblings, he manages to give a decent review of Relativity and Quantum physics. He offers several very useful alternative presentations for subjects that are usually more confusing than they need to be. If you've been interested in either of these topics, but frustrated with your unanswered questions, this book might actually help you. But only if you can wade through the rest of the book, of course.
The most frustrating (and seemingly pointless) part of this entire book, for me, at least, was his quixotic defense of "free will". He goes on and on about it, in multiple chapters. He absolutely rails against anyone who has ever claimed that the universe is purely deterministic, including Einstein—whom he otherwise clearly adores. But the very best argument he presents for the existence of free will is that physics can't (yet) rule it out, since pure determinism (which he derisively blames on physicalists, like Einstein) cannot withstand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Since two perfectly identical radioactive particles will behave differently, decaying at different times, their behavior is not purely determined by their past, but is instead random (within certain boundaries). And I'm not making this up, he actually "jokingly" suggests that those particles have "free will":
"I may not have free will," he quips, defensively, "but these [pi mesons] sure appear to have it," willfully conflating the concepts of "random" and "unpredictable". He's as serious as you'll let him be. For the author, it seems, "random behavior based on probabilistic functions" is where "free will" hides.
Despite the large amount of words dedicated to the subject, however, he never really comes around to the relevancy of his incessant rants on free will. The best we get is that:
"Now [the moment in time] is the only moment when we can exercise influence, the only moment when we can direct entropy away from ourselves so that we can orchestrate local entropy to decrease. Such local decrease is the source of expanded life and civilization. To direct entropy in that way, we must have free will—a capability that physicalists call an illusion, even though current quantum physics theory has similar behavior built into its essence."
Then, in the very next paragraph, after claiming that there is only one way for us to direct entropy (e.g. via free will), he goes on to discuss how free will could be falsified. He then throws in a completely random guess about someday finding a "special reference frame for causality," casually tossing out the Lemaître frame as a "top candidate". Full stop, end of discussion. Sure, let's go with that—whatever it takes to save his inexplicably precious free will.
On a few occasions, he throws someone under the bus for a crime he will soon commit himself. When discussing Dirac's prediction of the positron, he says, "it is much more comforting to discover that you can explain a previously known mystery, such as the magnetism of the electron, than to be forced to make a prediction [that the positron exists].... His defensive excuse that the 'probability [of experimentally finding the positron] is negligible' is wrong." Harsh, perhaps, but seemingly fair.
The author, however, is much more forgiving of his own limitations. After spending uncounted pages savagely railing against several pillars of science for suggesting theories that made the cardinal sin of not being falsifiable, and then finally—if vaguely—conveying his own theory, he dutifully makes an attempt to provide a theoretical method for falsifying his own theory. By his own admission, however, his first proposal for falsifying his theory encounters a problem that appears to be "intractable." Is he, too, guilty of the sin of hawking an unfalsifiable idea as a theory? Fear not, gentle reader. "[He takes] heart in the fact that when Dirac proposed his positron, he believed there was no way to detect it for the foreseeable future." So it's all good. Dirac started it.
I definitely enjoyed several parts of this book, most notably the parts that reviewed the inner workings of Relativity and quantum physics. I was consistently frustrated, however, by the author's personal tirades and seemingly frivolous tangents. It happens so often that on one occasion, the author finally asks for permission before beginning yet another rant, saying, "Excuse me for a moment while I rant about sciencespeak." He then launches into a completely irrelevant, brutal tirade:
"I ask, by what right does a scientist tell us that the American buffalo isn't a buffalo? Or that a spider is not an insect? Or that Pluto is not a planet? Scientists attempt to hijack these words and then tell us when we can and cannot use them. They didn't make up these words, so they don't have the right to narrow their definitions."
It baffles me why he thinks a scientists—a person who specifically and diligently seeks new understanding—should not be allowed to refine the words we use to discuss the world. But his brash stubbornness immediately gets worse:
"In my mind, an American buffalo is an American buffalo. In the 1600's, not only spiders but even earthworms and snails were called insects."
Is he suggesting that we should go back to a time when earthworms and snails were called insects? Perhaps he's reminding us that, since it used to be much worse, we should be fine with a little sloppiness in our current nomenclature. Whatever the case, though, he's not finished yet:
"I once had a mathematician tell me that I couldn't tie a knot in my shoelace, because by mathematical definition, anything that can be untied is not a knot!"
When this mathematician overlooks the homonyms of the word 'knot', presumably to highlight an interesting and distinguishing fact about knots in mathematics, rather than choosing to enjoy the academic exploration of mathematical knots, the author chooses to be insulted, or even offended. The knit-picky sciencespeak has gone too far for the author.
Yet, shortly after his blinding rant about scientists using sciencespeak to hijack words they didn't invent, he pulls the same trick in a chapter about black holes entitled, "Actually, There Are No Black Holes":
"Why do I say that there are no true black holes on the list [of black holes in Wikipedia]? Recall the calculation showing that it takes infinite time to fall into a black hole..." He goes on to say that, due to relativity, the matter that collapsed to form the black hole has not finished falling yet—and will never quite finish. He quickly apologizes, however:
"I am being somewhat pedantic. It takes forever to fall into a black hole, but you get pretty far in just a few minutes, in your own proper time measured by your own co-falling watch. From the outside frame you'll never reach the surface, but you'll be turned into a crepe-like object in relatively short order. So, in some sense, it hardly matters."
One mans outrageously offensive sciencespeak is another man's somewhat pedantic hijacking of words, it would seem.
There were, unfortunately, many, many frustrating, self-aggrandizing editorials throughout the book. That, it turns out, is a significant problem, since it can be difficult to distinguish between his opinion and helpful context.
For this reason alone, I recommend finding another book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 7, 2022
Ma așteptam la mai mult...
Cartea este structurată in felul următor : 40% lauda autorului, pe cine cunoaște si câte a făcut.
40% niște fizică
10% filosofie - ❤
10% lucruri despre timp.
Partea buna este ca am primit o explicare muuult mai bun asupra relativității si a mecanicii cuantice decât am primit in toată școala.
Cartea este structurată in felul următor : 40% lauda autorului, pe cine cunoaște si câte a făcut.
40% niște fizică
10% filosofie - ❤
10% lucruri despre timp.
Partea buna este ca am primit o explicare muuult mai bun asupra relativității si a mecanicii cuantice decât am primit in toată școala.
dnf
December 11, 2017DNF at page 108. In the beginning I thought it would be good. But when it started to halfheartedly discredit modern physics, drag and derail, I read some reviews here on goodreads. Apparently, it becomes more of a philosophical discussion of free will than actual science. Very disappointing indeed.
March 2, 2018
I enjoyed reading Muller’s book, maybe as much for its loose ends as its clear discussions along the way. He combines a reconstruction of some basics of relativity and quantum physics with an over-riding question — time’s arrow and our experience of a “now” in time — and a general, philosophical position on the limits of scientific knowledge. And, despite the subject matter, it’s written in an almost breezy manner, although you’ll certainly find yourself going back to read passages a second or third time to understand subtle points.
The bulk of the book really is Muller’s laying out of his own understanding of the current landscape of physics and cosmology.
It deserves being called a “reconstruction” because he seeks to overturn some popular scientific misconceptions along the way. The expansion of the universe, for example, does not mean that galaxies are moving away from one another, but that the space between them is expanding. That may seem like a difference between two ways of describing the same thing, but the difference will become important later when Muller addresses the question of time, “now”, and time’s arrow. Just as space is continually created by cosmological expansion, he will claim that time is also expanding.
He also corrects the popular construction of space-time as three axes of space and a fourth time axis, similar to the spatial axes. That popular picture gives us the impression of a linear expanse of time — past, present, and future — on which we just happen to sit at a point we call the present, as if future and past also existed as accessible points, at least in principle. Again, correcting this picture will play an important part in his own conception of time later in the book.
Muller devotes extensive discussions to indeterminacy and entropy. He recounts Einstein’s opposition to indeterminacy as an objective characteristic of reality. This is part of his general argument that physics is “incomplete”. Despite Einstein’s protests, indeterminacy actually does turn out to be a feature of objective reality. The common sense determinism of scientific thought, that the past determines the future, turns out to be false. Physics, in turn, is incomplete, in that it cannot compute the future even given complete knowledge of the past and present. The idealized “complete” knowledge of the past and present — the position and velocity of all particles — is unobtainable, because there simply are no such determinate, objective positions and velocities.
His discussion of entropy takes up the perhaps dominant explanation of time’s arrow, by Arthur Eddington — that the arrow of time is the arrow of increasing entropy. Muller considers Eddington’s account in some interesting discussions of the relation between local entropy and cosmological entropy. Certainly we, through intentional activity, can decrease local entropy. Our experience of time’s arrow is not one of ever-increasing entropy. Muller wants us to see that, in an important sense, the idea that time as entropy cannot go backwards is illusory — local entropy certainly does go backwards. The familiar illustration of entropy’s direction — reversing the film sequence of a cup breaking, now showing the pieces of the cup bizarrely flying together — is misleading. Cups do actually come together, reversing entropy, when we make them.
I’m unsure exactly how to understand the relation between the problem of time’s arrow in physics and the importance that Muller gives to the human experience of time (and local entropy). But he certainly does mean to claim that physics turns out to be incomplete in another sense beyond that implied by objective indeterminacy. That other sense of incompleteness has to do with conscious experience, such as our conscious experience of time.
Muller is a scientist who does not think the reach of scientific knowledge is complete — there are phenomena beyond the reach of scientific knowledge. In particular, science cannot grant us knowledge of conscious phenomena, e.g., what it is like to see blue. We can certainly have scientific accounts of what happens when we are conscious (e.g., that certain areas of the brain are active), but that is not a description of the conscious experience itself (see Thomas Nagel’s classic paper, “What Is It Like to be a Bat?” for a fuller treatment of the problem, although Muller doesn’t cite Nagel).
All of these themes come together toward the end of the book in Muller’s speculations about “now”. The direction of time, and our position at “now”, are not adequately explained by our current physics. Our experience of “now” is likewise unaccounted for in physics (actually our conscious experience of anything is unaccounted for by physics).
We do however, from quantum physics, have a way of distinguishing the past from the present and the future. What separates the past from “now” is the determination of the past — quantum uncertainty has been resolved in the past (through “measurement” — a still mysterious natural process that collapses the wave function of quantum physics). In the present, and in the future, no such determination has occurred. In fact, Muller thinks that time is continuously created, just as space is, in the cosmological expansion of the universe.
The claim is speculative, and probably requires a lot more physics (especially concerning measurement). But Muller offers some thoughts on experiments we might make to go forward.
Muller’s claims on indeterminacy, local entropy, and the unattainability of scientific accounts of conscious experience also lead him to some conclusions about free will. Certainly indeterminacy is not the same thing as free will — indeterminacy has nothing to do with intentional behavior. But indeterminacy at least may remove one obstacle to accepting free will, that our future actions are not strictly determined by the past or present. His account of free will is, like his account of the continuous creation of “now”, speculative, but interesting. He would like to say that, since “now” and the future are undetermined, in the physical sense, they are open to willful determination — explained by him as generation of local decreases in entropy. Those local decreases are the province of life and its productions (order, structure, intentional action . . . civilization).
In my own understanding, from reading Muller, the marriage of all of these themes isn’t really consummated. The flow of time, free will, and what blue looks like are all phenomena that appear not to be well understood, certainly by science, and possibly will never be understood by scientists. I’m just not sure how all are related to one another, or if “now” does not turn out to be inextricable from the conscious experience that Muller thinks cannot be adequately described in scientific terms.
But Muller is refreshingly provocative. And I think it is especially refreshing, in not only a scientific but a scientistic age, to find a physicist who does not think that physics can encompass everything.
One minor quibble. Well maybe not minor. Muller delves deeply into some important philosophical problems — the status of conscious experience, free will, the limits of objective knowledge. And he does discuss some philosophical treatments of those issues. But, given that he teaches at a university with one of the world’s leading philosophy departments, there’s no evidence (that I could find in the book) that he’d actually walked over to the philosophy department to find out what they thought. Doing so may have substantially enriched and applied additional rigor to his treatments of those issues.
The bulk of the book really is Muller’s laying out of his own understanding of the current landscape of physics and cosmology.
It deserves being called a “reconstruction” because he seeks to overturn some popular scientific misconceptions along the way. The expansion of the universe, for example, does not mean that galaxies are moving away from one another, but that the space between them is expanding. That may seem like a difference between two ways of describing the same thing, but the difference will become important later when Muller addresses the question of time, “now”, and time’s arrow. Just as space is continually created by cosmological expansion, he will claim that time is also expanding.
He also corrects the popular construction of space-time as three axes of space and a fourth time axis, similar to the spatial axes. That popular picture gives us the impression of a linear expanse of time — past, present, and future — on which we just happen to sit at a point we call the present, as if future and past also existed as accessible points, at least in principle. Again, correcting this picture will play an important part in his own conception of time later in the book.
Muller devotes extensive discussions to indeterminacy and entropy. He recounts Einstein’s opposition to indeterminacy as an objective characteristic of reality. This is part of his general argument that physics is “incomplete”. Despite Einstein’s protests, indeterminacy actually does turn out to be a feature of objective reality. The common sense determinism of scientific thought, that the past determines the future, turns out to be false. Physics, in turn, is incomplete, in that it cannot compute the future even given complete knowledge of the past and present. The idealized “complete” knowledge of the past and present — the position and velocity of all particles — is unobtainable, because there simply are no such determinate, objective positions and velocities.
His discussion of entropy takes up the perhaps dominant explanation of time’s arrow, by Arthur Eddington — that the arrow of time is the arrow of increasing entropy. Muller considers Eddington’s account in some interesting discussions of the relation between local entropy and cosmological entropy. Certainly we, through intentional activity, can decrease local entropy. Our experience of time’s arrow is not one of ever-increasing entropy. Muller wants us to see that, in an important sense, the idea that time as entropy cannot go backwards is illusory — local entropy certainly does go backwards. The familiar illustration of entropy’s direction — reversing the film sequence of a cup breaking, now showing the pieces of the cup bizarrely flying together — is misleading. Cups do actually come together, reversing entropy, when we make them.
I’m unsure exactly how to understand the relation between the problem of time’s arrow in physics and the importance that Muller gives to the human experience of time (and local entropy). But he certainly does mean to claim that physics turns out to be incomplete in another sense beyond that implied by objective indeterminacy. That other sense of incompleteness has to do with conscious experience, such as our conscious experience of time.
Muller is a scientist who does not think the reach of scientific knowledge is complete — there are phenomena beyond the reach of scientific knowledge. In particular, science cannot grant us knowledge of conscious phenomena, e.g., what it is like to see blue. We can certainly have scientific accounts of what happens when we are conscious (e.g., that certain areas of the brain are active), but that is not a description of the conscious experience itself (see Thomas Nagel’s classic paper, “What Is It Like to be a Bat?” for a fuller treatment of the problem, although Muller doesn’t cite Nagel).
All of these themes come together toward the end of the book in Muller’s speculations about “now”. The direction of time, and our position at “now”, are not adequately explained by our current physics. Our experience of “now” is likewise unaccounted for in physics (actually our conscious experience of anything is unaccounted for by physics).
We do however, from quantum physics, have a way of distinguishing the past from the present and the future. What separates the past from “now” is the determination of the past — quantum uncertainty has been resolved in the past (through “measurement” — a still mysterious natural process that collapses the wave function of quantum physics). In the present, and in the future, no such determination has occurred. In fact, Muller thinks that time is continuously created, just as space is, in the cosmological expansion of the universe.
The claim is speculative, and probably requires a lot more physics (especially concerning measurement). But Muller offers some thoughts on experiments we might make to go forward.
Muller’s claims on indeterminacy, local entropy, and the unattainability of scientific accounts of conscious experience also lead him to some conclusions about free will. Certainly indeterminacy is not the same thing as free will — indeterminacy has nothing to do with intentional behavior. But indeterminacy at least may remove one obstacle to accepting free will, that our future actions are not strictly determined by the past or present. His account of free will is, like his account of the continuous creation of “now”, speculative, but interesting. He would like to say that, since “now” and the future are undetermined, in the physical sense, they are open to willful determination — explained by him as generation of local decreases in entropy. Those local decreases are the province of life and its productions (order, structure, intentional action . . . civilization).
In my own understanding, from reading Muller, the marriage of all of these themes isn’t really consummated. The flow of time, free will, and what blue looks like are all phenomena that appear not to be well understood, certainly by science, and possibly will never be understood by scientists. I’m just not sure how all are related to one another, or if “now” does not turn out to be inextricable from the conscious experience that Muller thinks cannot be adequately described in scientific terms.
But Muller is refreshingly provocative. And I think it is especially refreshing, in not only a scientific but a scientistic age, to find a physicist who does not think that physics can encompass everything.
One minor quibble. Well maybe not minor. Muller delves deeply into some important philosophical problems — the status of conscious experience, free will, the limits of objective knowledge. And he does discuss some philosophical treatments of those issues. But, given that he teaches at a university with one of the world’s leading philosophy departments, there’s no evidence (that I could find in the book) that he’d actually walked over to the philosophy department to find out what they thought. Doing so may have substantially enriched and applied additional rigor to his treatments of those issues.
October 8, 2016
Now is worth reading if only for the author's interesting theory on the generation of the arrow of time. A widely popular view among physicists is that the arrow of time can be explained by entropy: the universe grows ever more disorganized and chaotic, and it is this direction towards increased disorder that accounts for the arrow of time. Richard Muller presents arguments against this view and provides his own theory to replace it. These sections of the book are the best.
There are many intervening sections in which Muller presents some of the basics of cosmology, relativity, and quantum theory. There is little new or enlightening in these sections, but for the reader unfamiliar with these areas, this book is a solid introduction.
Be forewarned, though: Muller, who is himself a physicist with a number of outstanding achievements in his areas of research, decides, in this book, to dabble in metaphysics. He addresses religion, ethics, and free will, and he has read just enough philosophy to sound like he knows what he is talking about, but his arguments in these areas leave much to be desired. To take just one point: Muller seems to think that quantum indeterminacy somehow is an argument in favor of free will; he clearly has not read (or at least if he has read has not absorbed) any contemporary philosophical work addressing this issue, nor does it seem to have occurred to him that if his "free" decision is the result of a quantum fluctuation, it is still highly problematic that his "free" decision is based on something (namely, the quantum fluctuation) beyond his own control. He also seems never to have heard of philosophical compatibilism and therefore believes that the only two options are hard determinism or philosophical libertarianism.
Muller's novel approach to the arrow of time makes this book worth reading (at least those sections), but one would do well to pass over entirely every word he says about free will, religion, consciousness, and ethics.
There are many intervening sections in which Muller presents some of the basics of cosmology, relativity, and quantum theory. There is little new or enlightening in these sections, but for the reader unfamiliar with these areas, this book is a solid introduction.
Be forewarned, though: Muller, who is himself a physicist with a number of outstanding achievements in his areas of research, decides, in this book, to dabble in metaphysics. He addresses religion, ethics, and free will, and he has read just enough philosophy to sound like he knows what he is talking about, but his arguments in these areas leave much to be desired. To take just one point: Muller seems to think that quantum indeterminacy somehow is an argument in favor of free will; he clearly has not read (or at least if he has read has not absorbed) any contemporary philosophical work addressing this issue, nor does it seem to have occurred to him that if his "free" decision is the result of a quantum fluctuation, it is still highly problematic that his "free" decision is based on something (namely, the quantum fluctuation) beyond his own control. He also seems never to have heard of philosophical compatibilism and therefore believes that the only two options are hard determinism or philosophical libertarianism.
Muller's novel approach to the arrow of time makes this book worth reading (at least those sections), but one would do well to pass over entirely every word he says about free will, religion, consciousness, and ethics.
January 16, 2022
Now: The Physics of Time is quite thorough in its scope. Written by Richard A. Muller, the book discusses his personal theories of why time possesses a direction. The question is harder than it seems at first since you must define all of your terms. For instance, what is the past? Why do we remember what has happened rather than what has not happened? This might seem elementary, but it almost requires a tautology to explain. We don’t remember what hasn’t happened because it hasn’t happened yet.
Along the way, Muller talks about Relativity and Quantum Physics. Einstein thought of something we take for granted, namely time and simultaneity and threw that notion out the window. According to Relativity, there is no such thing as a universal frame of reference that allows for two events to occur simultaneously under all reference frames. Einstein even had to explain what he meant by “Now,” but he found that difficult as well. How do you explain the concept of Now and not sound like you are talking to a five-year-old?
In the main portions of the arguments Muller makes, he points out that a lion’s share of physics contains equations that don’t have a preferred direction in time. You may say that time plays a role in the equations and I would not argue with you there, but think of simple mechanics. If you throw a baseball from the top of a tall building, aren’t there technically two solutions? One doesn’t make sense only because of the frame of the problem. We don’t accept negative time. Many physicists argue that this is because Time is an intrinsic quality of the universe and point to the idea of entropy and how it can only increase.
Entropy for those of you not in the know is a concept that I am only familiar with because I read a few books on Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics. Even so, I don’t entirely get the idea of Entropy, so I will turn to a dictionary definition. In Thermodynamics, Entropy is a quantity representing the unavailability of a system’s thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. Basically, you take gasoline and use it to run an engine. You get waste products from that simple combustion that equal the masses of the gasoline and oxygen put into the system. This is the first law of thermodynamics. The second law states that the process of this is irreversible. Things tend toward disorder and chaos. So many physicists point this out and use this to say that this is why time has an arrow.
Professor Muller disagrees though. He comes up with some alternative theories and tells us that Entropy does not determine the arrow of time, it is the other way around. Muller then begins to discuss ideas outside of science, which I found to be fascinating. I have heard of a lot of these arguments before, so none of it was really new to me. Take the idea of teleportation. There is nothing in physics to rule it out as a possibility, but doing so would destroy your original body. Even our perceptions are beyond the realm of physics. Muller illustrates this by talking about how people perceive the color blue. Is my blue your blue? To be more convoluted and precise, is my perception of the color blue the same as yours? It is a question that goes beyond physics. It is like “What is it like to be a bat?” We don’t know how our perceptions would change as a bat. I mean, you can think about what it would be like to have echolocation and fly around eating mosquitoes and other insects but that isn’t the same as having a Chiropteran brain.
The final part of the book is a set of six appendices that add to the background of the theories and ideas. The book is really quite enjoyable and interesting, at least to me. I don’t know if it is right or wrong, but the idea is rather compelling.
Along the way, Muller talks about Relativity and Quantum Physics. Einstein thought of something we take for granted, namely time and simultaneity and threw that notion out the window. According to Relativity, there is no such thing as a universal frame of reference that allows for two events to occur simultaneously under all reference frames. Einstein even had to explain what he meant by “Now,” but he found that difficult as well. How do you explain the concept of Now and not sound like you are talking to a five-year-old?
In the main portions of the arguments Muller makes, he points out that a lion’s share of physics contains equations that don’t have a preferred direction in time. You may say that time plays a role in the equations and I would not argue with you there, but think of simple mechanics. If you throw a baseball from the top of a tall building, aren’t there technically two solutions? One doesn’t make sense only because of the frame of the problem. We don’t accept negative time. Many physicists argue that this is because Time is an intrinsic quality of the universe and point to the idea of entropy and how it can only increase.
Entropy for those of you not in the know is a concept that I am only familiar with because I read a few books on Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics. Even so, I don’t entirely get the idea of Entropy, so I will turn to a dictionary definition. In Thermodynamics, Entropy is a quantity representing the unavailability of a system’s thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. Basically, you take gasoline and use it to run an engine. You get waste products from that simple combustion that equal the masses of the gasoline and oxygen put into the system. This is the first law of thermodynamics. The second law states that the process of this is irreversible. Things tend toward disorder and chaos. So many physicists point this out and use this to say that this is why time has an arrow.
Professor Muller disagrees though. He comes up with some alternative theories and tells us that Entropy does not determine the arrow of time, it is the other way around. Muller then begins to discuss ideas outside of science, which I found to be fascinating. I have heard of a lot of these arguments before, so none of it was really new to me. Take the idea of teleportation. There is nothing in physics to rule it out as a possibility, but doing so would destroy your original body. Even our perceptions are beyond the realm of physics. Muller illustrates this by talking about how people perceive the color blue. Is my blue your blue? To be more convoluted and precise, is my perception of the color blue the same as yours? It is a question that goes beyond physics. It is like “What is it like to be a bat?” We don’t know how our perceptions would change as a bat. I mean, you can think about what it would be like to have echolocation and fly around eating mosquitoes and other insects but that isn’t the same as having a Chiropteran brain.
The final part of the book is a set of six appendices that add to the background of the theories and ideas. The book is really quite enjoyable and interesting, at least to me. I don’t know if it is right or wrong, but the idea is rather compelling.
August 31, 2017
why do physicists always think they are sooooo cool and edgy? ugh.
muller starts out with a pretty easy to grasp refresher of relativity, cosmology, and quantum physics. he adds the conjecture that in addition to creating new space, the big bang is continuously creating new time, which is what humans experience as the fleeting sense of 'now.' we exist on the eternal boundary of the 4th dimension, experiencing time's flow only because of these new moments. it's interesting to think consider what would happen if that new time ceased to be created.
anyway, the book's novelty was that "4d big bang," which could have been imparted in a tweet much more easily.
then muller pissed me off by positing a 'spiritual realm' while at the same time railing against people believing things that are unproven. somehow, this concept of now tells him that he has a soul and free will. but please don't ask him how one leads to the others.
read my tweet, "what if we are riding the crest of a wave of new time?" and skip the book.
muller starts out with a pretty easy to grasp refresher of relativity, cosmology, and quantum physics. he adds the conjecture that in addition to creating new space, the big bang is continuously creating new time, which is what humans experience as the fleeting sense of 'now.' we exist on the eternal boundary of the 4th dimension, experiencing time's flow only because of these new moments. it's interesting to think consider what would happen if that new time ceased to be created.
anyway, the book's novelty was that "4d big bang," which could have been imparted in a tweet much more easily.
then muller pissed me off by positing a 'spiritual realm' while at the same time railing against people believing things that are unproven. somehow, this concept of now tells him that he has a soul and free will. but please don't ask him how one leads to the others.
read my tweet, "what if we are riding the crest of a wave of new time?" and skip the book.
December 12, 2023
I really enjoyed this book - it is packed with a plethora of different theories in physics and maths from both old and new (note: this was written in 2016, so is somewhat out of date for modern physics) which really bring together a lot of non-mathematical - maths is included in the appendices - physics concepts and, I think, explains them very well.
I got the sense, at the beginning of this book, that it would lead onto Muller's version of what our notion of 'Now' actually is - this doesn't happen. A lot of ink is taken up with him discrediting Eddington's proposal of the arrow of entropy but there is no new formulation by Muller of the arrow of time, just the touch on time being continually created since the 4D big bang. Additionally, Muller appears to have a problem with many of Hawking's theories and he mentions him rather frequently throughout the text and often states how he disagrees with him.
I got the sense, at the beginning of this book, that it would lead onto Muller's version of what our notion of 'Now' actually is - this doesn't happen. A lot of ink is taken up with him discrediting Eddington's proposal of the arrow of entropy but there is no new formulation by Muller of the arrow of time, just the touch on time being continually created since the 4D big bang. Additionally, Muller appears to have a problem with many of Hawking's theories and he mentions him rather frequently throughout the text and often states how he disagrees with him.
August 24, 2018
Time and physics are inherently fascinating. I enjoyed Carlo Rovelli's The Order of Time more, but Muller managed to add some depth.
The more I listen and read about the different theories, the more time seems to be tied to information transfer. Schrodinger's cat enters time when information is transferred. Before that the cat is beyond time in a here/not here limbo. We feel time and realize it can't go backward, because information is a one way ticket.
Maybe this is just a classic example of the current zeitgeist (information technology) informing in how I look at the world, but, yeah, you can't go back an unread this can you. Think of this as Schrodinger's review.
The more I listen and read about the different theories, the more time seems to be tied to information transfer. Schrodinger's cat enters time when information is transferred. Before that the cat is beyond time in a here/not here limbo. We feel time and realize it can't go backward, because information is a one way ticket.
Maybe this is just a classic example of the current zeitgeist (information technology) informing in how I look at the world, but, yeah, you can't go back an unread this can you. Think of this as Schrodinger's review.
March 4, 2020
Pretty challenging for me. Very interesting and glad I read it.
March 3, 2017
Perhaps deceivingly, this book does not spend much time going deep into the physics/concept of now. However, if you are interested in modern physics and all the twists and turns, the unexpected interpretations of reality that relativity and quantum physics has led us to, this is a well written and page-turning book.
Review of interesting topics:
- time is relativistic. If the frame of reference is adjusted, it is possible for two events to seem simultaneous, first before the second, or second before the first
- time invariance (laws of physics are same every moment in time) -> conservation of energy (Emmy Noether)
- existence of tachyons (particles that travel faster than light) implies no free will (with tachyons it is possible that in some frame of reference, the order of cause & result are reversed.)
-the time it takes to reach a black hole is infinite because of relativity of time. unless there were primordial black holes, no completed black holes exist (it will take infinite time to form a completed back hole)
- entropy is the logarithm of the number of quantum states accessible to a system. Exercise free will by limiting "accessible" states.
-the universe is expanding in an accelerated pace. New space is being created at an accelerated pace. More space implies more ways to fill the universe and thus higher max entropy. Our low observed entropy (highly organized) universe results from this.
- right after the big bag, quantum fluctuations from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would cause small lumps that would grow from local gravity, forming structures that would eventually become large-scale clusters of galaxies.
- violation of T symmetry has been found. elementary particle interactions can be determined to be running forward or backward.
- there is no definition of what "measurement" means in quantum physics. the quantum wave function cannot be measured. when measured it collapses to a simpler function.
- the Planck length results from the uncertainty principle, which implies that a small region of "empty" space cannot have 0 energy (certain energy). if the region is sufficiently tiny, using the Schwarzschild formula, the vacuum will have a microscopic black hole. so it has been proposed that perhaps space is digitized separated by roughly a Planck length.
- positrons are theoretically equivalent to electrons moving backward in time. Inspecting a Feynman diagram of ways an electron can scatter of a positron, is it easy to see the interaction as an electron being bounced backwards in time. Wheeler suggested that perhaps all electrons have the same mass and charge because they are the same electron, bouncing forward and backward in time.
- Godel's theorem states that all mathematical theories are incomplete, and will contains truths that cannot be proved. Physics using mathematics is also incomplete.
- particles that are identical in every aspect at the quantum level (same wave function/charge etc etc) may decay at different times. The author argues that this shows that even if we had every piece of information about the past and present, we still cannot predict the future, and this proves the existence of free will.
- author denounces physicalism, which is the belief that anything not based on logic, reason, and cannot be readily quantified is not a part of reality.
- finally, the arrow of time is not caused by entropy (Eddington). the author speculates that time is being constantly created just like space. The big bang set this into motion.
The later bits:
Starting from chapter 22 Cogito Ergo Sum, the book veers off track into the realms of philosophy and religion, and becomes more polemic than science. The writing suffers here, and the ideas are repeated frequently, often with the same wording. This doesn't make his arguments more convincing, and it sounds like ranting. Because he veered so far off from his own field, (into evolution, and empathy, and virtue), even I could spot numerous flaws in his arguments.
The last few chapters are short and still worth a quick read.
Review of interesting topics:
- time is relativistic. If the frame of reference is adjusted, it is possible for two events to seem simultaneous, first before the second, or second before the first
- time invariance (laws of physics are same every moment in time) -> conservation of energy (Emmy Noether)
- existence of tachyons (particles that travel faster than light) implies no free will (with tachyons it is possible that in some frame of reference, the order of cause & result are reversed.)
-the time it takes to reach a black hole is infinite because of relativity of time. unless there were primordial black holes, no completed black holes exist (it will take infinite time to form a completed back hole)
- entropy is the logarithm of the number of quantum states accessible to a system. Exercise free will by limiting "accessible" states.
-the universe is expanding in an accelerated pace. New space is being created at an accelerated pace. More space implies more ways to fill the universe and thus higher max entropy. Our low observed entropy (highly organized) universe results from this.
- right after the big bag, quantum fluctuations from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would cause small lumps that would grow from local gravity, forming structures that would eventually become large-scale clusters of galaxies.
- violation of T symmetry has been found. elementary particle interactions can be determined to be running forward or backward.
- there is no definition of what "measurement" means in quantum physics. the quantum wave function cannot be measured. when measured it collapses to a simpler function.
- the Planck length results from the uncertainty principle, which implies that a small region of "empty" space cannot have 0 energy (certain energy). if the region is sufficiently tiny, using the Schwarzschild formula, the vacuum will have a microscopic black hole. so it has been proposed that perhaps space is digitized separated by roughly a Planck length.
- positrons are theoretically equivalent to electrons moving backward in time. Inspecting a Feynman diagram of ways an electron can scatter of a positron, is it easy to see the interaction as an electron being bounced backwards in time. Wheeler suggested that perhaps all electrons have the same mass and charge because they are the same electron, bouncing forward and backward in time.
- Godel's theorem states that all mathematical theories are incomplete, and will contains truths that cannot be proved. Physics using mathematics is also incomplete.
- particles that are identical in every aspect at the quantum level (same wave function/charge etc etc) may decay at different times. The author argues that this shows that even if we had every piece of information about the past and present, we still cannot predict the future, and this proves the existence of free will.
- author denounces physicalism, which is the belief that anything not based on logic, reason, and cannot be readily quantified is not a part of reality.
- finally, the arrow of time is not caused by entropy (Eddington). the author speculates that time is being constantly created just like space. The big bang set this into motion.
The later bits:
Starting from chapter 22 Cogito Ergo Sum, the book veers off track into the realms of philosophy and religion, and becomes more polemic than science. The writing suffers here, and the ideas are repeated frequently, often with the same wording. This doesn't make his arguments more convincing, and it sounds like ranting. Because he veered so far off from his own field, (into evolution, and empathy, and virtue), even I could spot numerous flaws in his arguments.
The last few chapters are short and still worth a quick read.
July 25, 2018
The first half of the book is an entertaining look at the history of physics, the people and how the ideas evolved — very little I hadn't read elsewhere but it was entertaining all the same.
The second half was "old man yells at cloud" of freshman level philosophy against "physicalism" and atheism and promoting the idea of freewill and the soul. Mostly it's a lot of straw man arguments and him just shooting from the hip. Not only did this whole mess come out of nowhere but it struck as hypocritical since Muller spends much of the book railing against theories that weren't testable.
Also as someone who has read a lot on the nature of freewill, I'm flummoxed that Muller completely ignored all of the neuropsychological research on freewill. His proof that we have freewill is basically "we can't predict the decay of particles perfectly, thus the world isn't totally deterministic so we must have freewill!". Which is like claiming that Grandma is telling the truth that she came from Mars because we don't have a copy of her birth certificate.
His proof that we have souls is even worse as it boils down to "we have empathy, thus we have souls." Showing how shallow he's thought he does mention how sociopaths are missing empathy but then doesn't make 2+2 with his own statement since by his proof this would mean that sociopaths are missing souls — lets ignore the fact that sociopathology is more complicated than that. Oh apparently according to Muller gorillas have souls too — thanks book that is supposed to be about physics for illuminating me on that piece of info.
The last sliver of the book finally hits upon the concept that Now is a result of new time being created as the universe grows and adds more space-time. This is supposed to be what the entire books is about but it barely touches on the topic. Seriously, I've read more in-depth discussions on twitter. Muller mentions the idea, mentions there is one or two ways it might be experimentally tested, and then leaves it at that. What I wanted to read was what the ramifications were of this theory. If this is the reason we have a Now then what does that mean for other aspects of physics, what does it mean for the universe? But Muller never touches on that, instead he just circles back to his sophomoric rant on freewill.
The second half was "old man yells at cloud" of freshman level philosophy against "physicalism" and atheism and promoting the idea of freewill and the soul. Mostly it's a lot of straw man arguments and him just shooting from the hip. Not only did this whole mess come out of nowhere but it struck as hypocritical since Muller spends much of the book railing against theories that weren't testable.
Also as someone who has read a lot on the nature of freewill, I'm flummoxed that Muller completely ignored all of the neuropsychological research on freewill. His proof that we have freewill is basically "we can't predict the decay of particles perfectly, thus the world isn't totally deterministic so we must have freewill!". Which is like claiming that Grandma is telling the truth that she came from Mars because we don't have a copy of her birth certificate.
His proof that we have souls is even worse as it boils down to "we have empathy, thus we have souls." Showing how shallow he's thought he does mention how sociopaths are missing empathy but then doesn't make 2+2 with his own statement since by his proof this would mean that sociopaths are missing souls — lets ignore the fact that sociopathology is more complicated than that. Oh apparently according to Muller gorillas have souls too — thanks book that is supposed to be about physics for illuminating me on that piece of info.
The last sliver of the book finally hits upon the concept that Now is a result of new time being created as the universe grows and adds more space-time. This is supposed to be what the entire books is about but it barely touches on the topic. Seriously, I've read more in-depth discussions on twitter. Muller mentions the idea, mentions there is one or two ways it might be experimentally tested, and then leaves it at that. What I wanted to read was what the ramifications were of this theory. If this is the reason we have a Now then what does that mean for other aspects of physics, what does it mean for the universe? But Muller never touches on that, instead he just circles back to his sophomoric rant on freewill.
February 4, 2017
Well, I ain't no scientist. And I am not a regular reader of books on physics. Since some of the issues discussed in Muller's book pertain to issues long mused-upon by philosophers, however, I am not entirely unfamiliar w/ discourse upon the issues under consideration. It is in fact the philosopher Henri Bergson who has most informed my own ideas of time, and much of what he wrote - the very nature of his placement of the manifold of the temporal - has famously inspired and been confirmed by much subsequent physics (Einstein was a fan). Muller never references Bergson, but for a reader of Bergson there is much here that will hardly be unfamiliar in terms of the basic attitude to the human experience of Now, although there is an especially significant divergence in where the book ends up in terms of its situation of the future. A problem I have w/ early Bergson is a problem I also have w/ Muller: the conceptualization of free will. Muller advocates for the rehabilitation of the concept. I am not sold. It is impossible for me to accept that will is ever actually free, and I do not think 20th century progress in quantum physics does anything to problematize my conviction (though I concede that neither does it confirm it). The conclusion Muller arrives at regarding the Now is actually in a sense underwhelming in its fundamental common-sense-type simplicity, though it does indeed diverge from what I have come to understand. In this sense the book radicalizes how I am prepared tot think about time. The main reason I read the book was because I am preparing to write a piece in which entropy plays a significant role, and I wanted to get a better sense of how the second law of thermodynamics works in terms of time. The book did indeed help me in this regard. A good book, then, and recommended for neophytes like myself.
August 18, 2019
I picked this book up because I was always seeing reports of distant (I mean across the universe distant) events being described with Earth-bound time frames. I suspected that for very far distant events, Earth-bound time was (is?) meaningless. I'm also fascinated with the physics of time. I learned a very great deal, including about time dilation across black holes, that seemed to confirm my original suspicion that Earth-bound time is meaningless when applied to far distant events. But, I'm not smart enough to tell. I think another timescale (like stardates from Star Trek or something) would be just as invalid, so if Earth-bound time scales makes us feel more comfortable, why not?
November 27, 2017
This book boils down to an unsubstantiated proposition: that the supposed flow of Time is really just the creation of time, occurring alongside the expansion of space (space time). The author waits until the final six pages to reveal this. Significant portions of this book wander off into diatribes against “physicalism,” a supposed pseudo religion and evangelizing the possibility that there are “truths” beyond those that are quantifiable.
If you want to learn about time, you’d be better served finding yourself a copy of Sean Carroll’s From Eternity to Here. This book was very disappointing.
If you want to learn about time, you’d be better served finding yourself a copy of Sean Carroll’s From Eternity to Here. This book was very disappointing.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 21, 2016
Amazing book that makes you reflect about time and all of the other related concepts in physics.
January 5, 2020
To jedna z tych książek, z którymi mam kłopot. W dobrej książce popularno-naukowej autor stara budować treść na równym poziomie zaawansowania, operować pojęciami ze spójnego systemu poznania i jasno dzielić sądy pewne od prawdopodobnych, a te od niemal niemożliwych czy sprzecznych w ramach jakiejś założonej struktury metodologicznej. Książka "Teraz. Fizyka czasu" fizyka Richarda Mullera jest niestety próbą połączenia wody z ogniem, pokazania jednym tchem osiągnięć fizyki i własnych nieweryfikowalnych przekonań w tych miejscach, gdzie nauka nie ma odpowiedzi. Nie jest przy tym kluczowe, czy te odpowiedzi kiedyś będą znane, czy sama istota rzeczywistości nas obiektywnie skazuje na niepewność.
Najpierw jednak plusy, które według mnie są wystarczające do sięgnięcia po książkę, a przynajmniej po jej 3/4 tekstu. Muller dość ciekawie i czasem niestandardowo pokazał rozumienie czasu, 'teraz', 'przedtem' i 'potem' w ramach teorii względności. Bardzo ciekawie skomentował sens entropii, jako jednego z kluczowych zjawisk wpływających na nasze rozumienie zmienności w czasie. Gorzej wypadła dyskusja teorii kwantowej. Podane przykłady wydały mi się dość nieczytelne. Jeśli ktoś z tej publikacji chciałby się dowiedzieć jak mechanika kwantowa odnosi się do czasu i co jest w niej najbardziej niesamowitego, będzie miał kłopot. Muller wprowadził ad hoc kilka pojęć (jak amplituda prawdopodobieństwa) bez kontekstu i szansy na zrozumienie u początkującego w fizyce czytelnika.
Dobrym pomysłem było umieszczenie na końcu pracy kilku dodatków z podstawowymi rachunkami, które w ramach teorii względności prowadzą do zadziwiających wniosków. Chyba najciekawsze było pokazanie, że teoria ta dopuszcza układy odniesienia z odwróconą kolejnością zdarzeń. Po raz kolejny czytelnik uświadomi sobie (literatura dostępna po polsku jest juzż bogata), że podstawy dziwnego zachowania czasoprzestrzeni (paradoks bliźniąt, dylatacje) są formalnie do wykazania matematyką wykładaną w ramach szkoły średniej. Bardzo jednoznacznie Muller skrytykował zasadę antropiczna, jako coś bezużytecznego (str. 202-203). To duży plus, szczególnie, gdy coraz liczniej autorzy książek popularnych z kosmologii posiłkują się tą koncepcją, co miałaby jakoby pomagać im w budowania dyskursu wokół sensu i przyczyny istnienia.
Dwie ostatnie części książki (str. 279-339) są dla mnie głównie przykładem nieuczciwości autora. Z świetnie pokazanych wcześniej niejasności i luk w rozumieniu świata, przechodzi do snucia własnych fantazji, które są z reguły 'meta-', 'para-' lub 'a-' fizyczne. Z braku pełnej wiedzy o świecie kwantowym, w szczególności chodzi o splatanie (czyli podejrzenie o złamaniu przyczynowości) i ogólniej o komplikacje na poziomie kwantowego pomiaru, wysnuwa wnioski o możliwości istnienia wolnej woli i duszy. Po pierwsze nie zdefiniował autor tych pojęć, co czyni dyskusję o nich dość mglistą. Po drugie dość nieuczciwie zasugerował, że dywagacje na tym poziomie są równie uprawnione, jak analizy na przykład kolapsu funkcji falowej. To ostatnie zjawisko, choć wciąż tkwi za zasłoną niejasności, to jednak prowadzi do jednoznacznych wyników, zaś zakładanie wolnej woli niczego na poziomie fizyki nie wyjaśnia. Jest pojęciem nieoperacyjnym. Równie nieprzekonujący jest według mnie argument związany z pracą mózgu i zjawiskami z pogranicza neurologii i psychologii. Według autora empatia, cnota, dobro czy istota percepcji koloru, z jednej strony przekreślają fizykalizm, z drugiej czynią z fizyki naukę niekompletną (str. 317). Z drugim się zgadzam, tylko wnioski autora z tego faktu są dość niepokojące. Zakłada on bowiem, że wyjściem z tych ograniczeń jest holizm dowolnych typów poznania w jeden system 'nad-prawdy', która pozwoli zrozumieć wszystko, a co najmniej więcej. Dla mnie to forma religii. Z faktu, że aktualnie coś jest niejasne nie warto wyciągać wniosków o istnieniu odpowiedzi tak skomplikowanych, że ich potwierdzenie (falsyfikacja) jest niemożliwe. Front badań nauki musi być spekulatywny, ale jednocześnie oparty na jakichś narzędziach sprawdzonych w działaniu (np. na matematyce).
"Teraz" jest nietypowym eksperymentem formy, który mogę ocenić dwojako. Mogę dać notę na podstawie własnych odczuć, albo uwzględnić dodatkowo dydaktyczność ważną dla początkującego czytelnika, który nie zna fizyki współczesnej. Uznałem, że moja ocena 'gwiazdkowa' uwzględni ten ostatni parametr. Większość książki jest świetna, ale z 25% treści się nie zgadzam (tak na poziomie oferowanego przesłania, sposobu argumentowania). Sporo satysfakcji podczas lektury dawało mi przedstawianie kontrargumentów na tezy autora. Generalnie to plus. Jednak czytelnik, który chciałby zacząć przygodę z pojęciem 'czas', z jednej strony dostaje klasyczne podstawy, z drugiej dalece zawężony i wysoce subiektywny (a co gorsza z zupełnie niezasygnalizowanymi innymi możliwymi podejściami) dyskurs z dominującym 'machaniem rękoma', czyli gdybaniem.
Dobre fragmenty oceniam na 8, średnie na 6, słabe na 3. Ponieważ te ostatnie są dla mnie metodologicznie kluczowe, to stawiam finalne 5.
Czyli chyba polecam przeczytać, ale bez budowania przeczucia o uzyskaniu prawdy dogmatycznej zaoferowanej pod koniec książki.
ŚREDNIE - 5/10
Najpierw jednak plusy, które według mnie są wystarczające do sięgnięcia po książkę, a przynajmniej po jej 3/4 tekstu. Muller dość ciekawie i czasem niestandardowo pokazał rozumienie czasu, 'teraz', 'przedtem' i 'potem' w ramach teorii względności. Bardzo ciekawie skomentował sens entropii, jako jednego z kluczowych zjawisk wpływających na nasze rozumienie zmienności w czasie. Gorzej wypadła dyskusja teorii kwantowej. Podane przykłady wydały mi się dość nieczytelne. Jeśli ktoś z tej publikacji chciałby się dowiedzieć jak mechanika kwantowa odnosi się do czasu i co jest w niej najbardziej niesamowitego, będzie miał kłopot. Muller wprowadził ad hoc kilka pojęć (jak amplituda prawdopodobieństwa) bez kontekstu i szansy na zrozumienie u początkującego w fizyce czytelnika.
Dobrym pomysłem było umieszczenie na końcu pracy kilku dodatków z podstawowymi rachunkami, które w ramach teorii względności prowadzą do zadziwiających wniosków. Chyba najciekawsze było pokazanie, że teoria ta dopuszcza układy odniesienia z odwróconą kolejnością zdarzeń. Po raz kolejny czytelnik uświadomi sobie (literatura dostępna po polsku jest juzż bogata), że podstawy dziwnego zachowania czasoprzestrzeni (paradoks bliźniąt, dylatacje) są formalnie do wykazania matematyką wykładaną w ramach szkoły średniej. Bardzo jednoznacznie Muller skrytykował zasadę antropiczna, jako coś bezużytecznego (str. 202-203). To duży plus, szczególnie, gdy coraz liczniej autorzy książek popularnych z kosmologii posiłkują się tą koncepcją, co miałaby jakoby pomagać im w budowania dyskursu wokół sensu i przyczyny istnienia.
Dwie ostatnie części książki (str. 279-339) są dla mnie głównie przykładem nieuczciwości autora. Z świetnie pokazanych wcześniej niejasności i luk w rozumieniu świata, przechodzi do snucia własnych fantazji, które są z reguły 'meta-', 'para-' lub 'a-' fizyczne. Z braku pełnej wiedzy o świecie kwantowym, w szczególności chodzi o splatanie (czyli podejrzenie o złamaniu przyczynowości) i ogólniej o komplikacje na poziomie kwantowego pomiaru, wysnuwa wnioski o możliwości istnienia wolnej woli i duszy. Po pierwsze nie zdefiniował autor tych pojęć, co czyni dyskusję o nich dość mglistą. Po drugie dość nieuczciwie zasugerował, że dywagacje na tym poziomie są równie uprawnione, jak analizy na przykład kolapsu funkcji falowej. To ostatnie zjawisko, choć wciąż tkwi za zasłoną niejasności, to jednak prowadzi do jednoznacznych wyników, zaś zakładanie wolnej woli niczego na poziomie fizyki nie wyjaśnia. Jest pojęciem nieoperacyjnym. Równie nieprzekonujący jest według mnie argument związany z pracą mózgu i zjawiskami z pogranicza neurologii i psychologii. Według autora empatia, cnota, dobro czy istota percepcji koloru, z jednej strony przekreślają fizykalizm, z drugiej czynią z fizyki naukę niekompletną (str. 317). Z drugim się zgadzam, tylko wnioski autora z tego faktu są dość niepokojące. Zakłada on bowiem, że wyjściem z tych ograniczeń jest holizm dowolnych typów poznania w jeden system 'nad-prawdy', która pozwoli zrozumieć wszystko, a co najmniej więcej. Dla mnie to forma religii. Z faktu, że aktualnie coś jest niejasne nie warto wyciągać wniosków o istnieniu odpowiedzi tak skomplikowanych, że ich potwierdzenie (falsyfikacja) jest niemożliwe. Front badań nauki musi być spekulatywny, ale jednocześnie oparty na jakichś narzędziach sprawdzonych w działaniu (np. na matematyce).
"Teraz" jest nietypowym eksperymentem formy, który mogę ocenić dwojako. Mogę dać notę na podstawie własnych odczuć, albo uwzględnić dodatkowo dydaktyczność ważną dla początkującego czytelnika, który nie zna fizyki współczesnej. Uznałem, że moja ocena 'gwiazdkowa' uwzględni ten ostatni parametr. Większość książki jest świetna, ale z 25% treści się nie zgadzam (tak na poziomie oferowanego przesłania, sposobu argumentowania). Sporo satysfakcji podczas lektury dawało mi przedstawianie kontrargumentów na tezy autora. Generalnie to plus. Jednak czytelnik, który chciałby zacząć przygodę z pojęciem 'czas', z jednej strony dostaje klasyczne podstawy, z drugiej dalece zawężony i wysoce subiektywny (a co gorsza z zupełnie niezasygnalizowanymi innymi możliwymi podejściami) dyskurs z dominującym 'machaniem rękoma', czyli gdybaniem.
Dobre fragmenty oceniam na 8, średnie na 6, słabe na 3. Ponieważ te ostatnie są dla mnie metodologicznie kluczowe, to stawiam finalne 5.
Czyli chyba polecam przeczytać, ale bez budowania przeczucia o uzyskaniu prawdy dogmatycznej zaoferowanej pod koniec książki.
ŚREDNIE - 5/10
April 14, 2024
Disappointing and a little boring. I should have paid more attention to the reviews. Not every scientist does a good job explaining physics. The author isn’t one of them. Muller may be a good scientist. He certainly makes that point continually, but he doesn’t cover anything new other that his own theory, which he covers minimally. The expansion of space since the Big Bang, given space-time, is also expanding time, creating it, and the wave front is his explanation for “now” and the flow of time. And since the expansion of space is accelerating, then time must be accelerating too. That explanation is about the depth of it he goes into. It is brought up at the start of the book and then not again until page 291. No deep explanations of it and no other support other than it maybe, might be falsifiable. In between? There is simply too much superfluous information and way too much pedantry. If you are familiar at all with the history of modern physics you will find nothing new. The title is a little misleading given that he does not delve that much into to “now” and he also devotes quite a bit into his personal philosophy of qualia, free-will and his own religious leanings. He actually has an appendix with quotes from other physicists that believe in God. A good example of the fallacy of the Appeal to Authority. Geez. He should know better, but obviously doesn’t, and the rest of his metaphysical arguments are about as unsound. Boring science and poor metaphysics.
November 16, 2019
I think many reviews are unfair on this book, if you expected to learn something new in physics you don’t understand the current state of physics. I liked it, the authors philosophical perspective on his work in experimental physics, the distance and interplay between the the experimentalists and theoretical physisits and his axioms relating to religion as developed over his lifetime is evident and we'll presented. As for learning about time. He presents some hypothesis and possible experimental directions to prove or disprove them. Some reviewers claim this is not the case. I suspect they missed it due to their distaste possibly induced by the authors wisdom on the constraints of human thought.
March 24, 2021
Not sure why I keep doing this to myself. I see the "shiny" book on TIME by some accomplished physicist and expect to learn something new. In reality, these books tend to be 40% History of Science and 60% trip down memory lane for the author. To be fair, this is a tough subject ... a subject that touches many subfields of Physics, as well as other non-physics disciplines. There really is no consensus as to what TIME is or how it works. Alas ...
May 4, 2021
Дуже сподобалося. Купив ще 3 примірники на подарунок друзям.
Гіпотези, що простір дискретний і складається з малих чорних дір, що позитрон - це електрон, що рухається назад у часі, і зщо тоді, усі електрони Всесвіту можуть бути одним електроном. Можливо ентропія рухає час, а можливо час постійно утворюється як розширення Великого Вибуху (4-тий вимір). І ще багато цікавого
Гіпотези, що простір дискретний і складається з малих чорних дір, що позитрон - це електрон, що рухається назад у часі, і зщо тоді, усі електрони Всесвіту можуть бути одним електроном. Можливо ентропія рухає час, а можливо час постійно утворюється як розширення Великого Вибуху (4-тий вимір). І ще багато цікавого
April 20, 2024
Винос головного мозку забезпечений 🤯.
January 1, 2024
Гарна книга, дає непогані пояснення від базових речей та до більш складних моментів. Не сподобались останні розділи, де в одному був майже філософсько-езотеричний відступ, а в іншому — трошечки з нічого введена теорія появи часу, можливо треба було дати їй більше простору.
Також Додатки з математикою містять банальні помилки та суперечності в позначеннях. Не знаю, біда це в автора чи вже під час перекладу, але жах трохи.
А ще звати Ґеделя Ґьоделем — того взагалі не зрозумів.
Також Додатки з математикою містять банальні помилки та суперечності в позначеннях. Не знаю, біда це в автора чи вже під час перекладу, але жах трохи.
А ще звати Ґеделя Ґьоделем — того взагалі не зрозумів.
December 6, 2016
Unlike some theorists, Muller doesn’t think time is an illusory artifact or that the future is set in stone by a set of quantum physics equations. He thinks time actually exists, and the key to understanding it is to define what we mean by now. This is what he sets out to do. He gets there by summarizing what we do know about time and then stepping into one of its greatest mysteries. Why, unlike just about every other physical process we know of, does time run in only one direction? He incisively dismisses the old, shaky explanation based on the second law of thermodynamics. From there he takes us through relativity and quantum physics and arrives at a startling waypoint: free will.
Muller doesn’t claim to prove that free will exists, but he strongly cheerleads in its favor. He also does a good job of showing that the strongest argument against free will—an entirely deterministic physical universe—has been disproven by hardcore physics research. He’s also an enthusiastic booster of dualism, the idea that the mind or spirit, though immaterial, has an existence of its own, perhaps in a sort of parallel universe that can interact with the physical universe. His solid point is that materialism or physicalism—the doctrine that only the quantifiable physical is real—isn’t a scientific outlook because it can’t be scientifically tested. Muller is no fringe kook or New Age guru but right at the center of the scientific establishment—physics professor at Berkeley, a MacArthur “Genius” fellow, and so on. He’s a scientist who humbly (and probably correctly) believes that science can never come close to explaining everything in the world nor solving all its problems.
In any event, free will and dualism are not vital to his definition of now. He sees now as the leading edge of the ongoing creation of new time and space begun by the Big Bang. That’s where we live. We can’t move into the past, and the indeterminate future cannot yet exist. He offers several possible experiments to test his ideas and potentially prove them false, which makes the theory scientific. Unfortunately, we don’t yet have the technical means to do the necessary research.
He has not convinced me that Occam’s razor can’t slice a few unnecessary complications from his theory. What if time, as an actual entity, doesn’t exist at all? We may find the concept of time handy in adding dimension to our view of things past. It’s also very useful for calculations, but so are negative numbers even though we all agree that there’s no such actual thing as negative-two goldfish in the bowl. Then does space not exist either? We can move through space—we can go back and forth along any of the three spatial dimensions. So why can’t we go backward or forward in time? Maybe simply because there is no such dimension nor any “flow of time,” as Muller sometimes describes it. Everything exists in a perpetually unfolding now. What we call the past is merely a collection of records and remnants, in the now, of “earlier” states. Time is a handy way of thinking about things and computing, but that doesn’t mean it physically exists. Muller calls this mistake, although not in reference to time itself, “interpreting a computational tool as a deep truth.”
Muller writes clearly, with enthusiasm and humor, and provides a fascinating, thought-provoking trip through advanced physics and the concept of time in general. That he seems to lead us in a direction that lab-less, math-less mystics have been talking about for millennia by no means detracts from his work. Perhaps just the contrary, to which I think Muller might agree.
Muller doesn’t claim to prove that free will exists, but he strongly cheerleads in its favor. He also does a good job of showing that the strongest argument against free will—an entirely deterministic physical universe—has been disproven by hardcore physics research. He’s also an enthusiastic booster of dualism, the idea that the mind or spirit, though immaterial, has an existence of its own, perhaps in a sort of parallel universe that can interact with the physical universe. His solid point is that materialism or physicalism—the doctrine that only the quantifiable physical is real—isn’t a scientific outlook because it can’t be scientifically tested. Muller is no fringe kook or New Age guru but right at the center of the scientific establishment—physics professor at Berkeley, a MacArthur “Genius” fellow, and so on. He’s a scientist who humbly (and probably correctly) believes that science can never come close to explaining everything in the world nor solving all its problems.
In any event, free will and dualism are not vital to his definition of now. He sees now as the leading edge of the ongoing creation of new time and space begun by the Big Bang. That’s where we live. We can’t move into the past, and the indeterminate future cannot yet exist. He offers several possible experiments to test his ideas and potentially prove them false, which makes the theory scientific. Unfortunately, we don’t yet have the technical means to do the necessary research.
He has not convinced me that Occam’s razor can’t slice a few unnecessary complications from his theory. What if time, as an actual entity, doesn’t exist at all? We may find the concept of time handy in adding dimension to our view of things past. It’s also very useful for calculations, but so are negative numbers even though we all agree that there’s no such actual thing as negative-two goldfish in the bowl. Then does space not exist either? We can move through space—we can go back and forth along any of the three spatial dimensions. So why can’t we go backward or forward in time? Maybe simply because there is no such dimension nor any “flow of time,” as Muller sometimes describes it. Everything exists in a perpetually unfolding now. What we call the past is merely a collection of records and remnants, in the now, of “earlier” states. Time is a handy way of thinking about things and computing, but that doesn’t mean it physically exists. Muller calls this mistake, although not in reference to time itself, “interpreting a computational tool as a deep truth.”
Muller writes clearly, with enthusiasm and humor, and provides a fascinating, thought-provoking trip through advanced physics and the concept of time in general. That he seems to lead us in a direction that lab-less, math-less mystics have been talking about for millennia by no means detracts from his work. Perhaps just the contrary, to which I think Muller might agree.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 183 reviews