What do you think?
Rate this book
Void: The Strange Physics of Nothing
The rising star author of The Physics of Wall Street explores why “nothing” may hold the key to the next era of theoretical physics
James Owen Weatherall’s previous book, The Physics of Wall Street, was a New York Times best-seller and named one of Physics Today’s five most intriguing books of 2013. In his newest volume, he takes on a fundamental concept of modern nothing. The physics of stuff— protons, neutrons, electrons, and even quarks and gluons—is at least somewhat familiar to most of us. But what about the physics of nothing ? Isaac Newton thought of empty space as nothingness extended in all directions, a kind of theater in which physics could unfold. But both quantum theory and relativity tell us that Newton’s picture can’t be right. Nothing, it turns out, is an awful lot like something , with a structure and properties every bit as complex and mysterious as matter. In his signature lively prose, Weatherall explores the very nature of empty space—and solidifies his reputation as a science writer to watch.
James Owen Weatherall’s previous book, The Physics of Wall Street, was a New York Times best-seller and named one of Physics Today’s five most intriguing books of 2013. In his newest volume, he takes on a fundamental concept of modern nothing. The physics of stuff— protons, neutrons, electrons, and even quarks and gluons—is at least somewhat familiar to most of us. But what about the physics of nothing ? Isaac Newton thought of empty space as nothingness extended in all directions, a kind of theater in which physics could unfold. But both quantum theory and relativity tell us that Newton’s picture can’t be right. Nothing, it turns out, is an awful lot like something , with a structure and properties every bit as complex and mysterious as matter. In his signature lively prose, Weatherall explores the very nature of empty space—and solidifies his reputation as a science writer to watch.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published November 22, 2016
About the author
James Owen Weatherall
4 books45 followersJames Owen Weatherall is a physicist, philosopher, and mathematician. He holds graduate degrees from Harvard, the Stevens Institute of Technology, and the University of California, Irvine, where is presently an assistant professor of logic and philosophy of science. He has written for Slate and Scientific American.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
October 31, 2017
Let me start with some citations from the book:
''In other words, general relativity tells us that with the right sort of springs and a passing gravitational wave, it is possible to make something out of nothing.“
''Nothing is not the absence of stuff; instead, it is just one possible configuration of stuff.''
''Whatever else is the case, 'nothing' in general relativity has a completely different meaning then 'nothing' in quantum field theory. And there is good reason to think that both senses of 'nothing' will be left behind in future physical theories.''
Huh, I think it's high time physicists and popular science writers stopped using the word 'nothing' with the meaning of 'something, though we don't yet know what exactly'.
All in all, the author's presentation of the subject matter lacks clarity. Too little content is devoted to the main theme. It is addressed to some extent but in a rather disrupted and incoherent manner. There are some insightful moments but they are too few and too far away, Out of 224 pages, less than 120 are content-wise. Which means that nearly half the book is devoted to Acknowledgments, Notes, Bibliography and Index. Yes, I know that Notes can sometimes be very helpful. Not so in this case. For the most part they are only references to the sources instead of clarifications. As for the general overview of the history of physics, to which a greater portion of the book is devoted, I understood only those parts I had already had a solid grasp of. The rest remained „all Chinese“ to me. And I did not get the impression that re-reading the book could change it.
''In other words, general relativity tells us that with the right sort of springs and a passing gravitational wave, it is possible to make something out of nothing.“
''Nothing is not the absence of stuff; instead, it is just one possible configuration of stuff.''
''Whatever else is the case, 'nothing' in general relativity has a completely different meaning then 'nothing' in quantum field theory. And there is good reason to think that both senses of 'nothing' will be left behind in future physical theories.''
Huh, I think it's high time physicists and popular science writers stopped using the word 'nothing' with the meaning of 'something, though we don't yet know what exactly'.
All in all, the author's presentation of the subject matter lacks clarity. Too little content is devoted to the main theme. It is addressed to some extent but in a rather disrupted and incoherent manner. There are some insightful moments but they are too few and too far away, Out of 224 pages, less than 120 are content-wise. Which means that nearly half the book is devoted to Acknowledgments, Notes, Bibliography and Index. Yes, I know that Notes can sometimes be very helpful. Not so in this case. For the most part they are only references to the sources instead of clarifications. As for the general overview of the history of physics, to which a greater portion of the book is devoted, I understood only those parts I had already had a solid grasp of. The rest remained „all Chinese“ to me. And I did not get the impression that re-reading the book could change it.
February 8, 2017
James Owen Weatherall, a philosopher, examines how scientists’ conceptions of precise nature of the nothing have changed in the light of the work done in the past century. We are taught that air is composed of various molecules, and these molecules have nothing in between them. But what is nothing? Does an electromagnetic field that had no oscillations anywhere should count as nothing. Is the zero field still a thing? What if the zero field is the same as two waves, moving in opposite directions, whose peaks and troughs exactly canceled one another out? Is that two things or no things?
Weatherall begins with Isaac Newton’s vision of space as nothingness extending
in all directions, Maxwell's ether and Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity which posits a rich structure in space-time. And then moves on to quantum theory according to which the vacuum is a state of matter and finally string theory — a theory that makes no predictions and places no constraints on what the world could possibly be like and which is riddled with vacuums.
Weatherall says that the biggest contribution by Feynman towards QED is his diagrammatic approach rather than Schwinger's formal approach, but he failed to include diagrams/images to explain some mundane concepts to the uninitiated reader. A diagram or two could have helped to explain the concepts better.
Weatherall begins with Isaac Newton’s vision of space as nothingness extending
in all directions, Maxwell's ether and Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity which posits a rich structure in space-time. And then moves on to quantum theory according to which the vacuum is a state of matter and finally string theory — a theory that makes no predictions and places no constraints on what the world could possibly be like and which is riddled with vacuums.
Weatherall says that the biggest contribution by Feynman towards QED is his diagrammatic approach rather than Schwinger's formal approach, but he failed to include diagrams/images to explain some mundane concepts to the uninitiated reader. A diagram or two could have helped to explain the concepts better.
August 7, 2018
Short, easy read, but I think you would need at least a smidgen of physics to get much out of it. On the other hand, those with a smidgen of physics would find it not overly enlightening. Mostly historical context. It was mildly interesting. Overall, the epilogue alone would have been enough for any sense of what the void means physically. For the record there is nothing of the metaphysical aspect of the void, at least that I remember, and Weatherall stuck purely to the scientific concepts of nothing.
March 1, 2018
“Nothing” isn’t easy. As a concept, it has lots of roots and branches. It has technical significance in physics. That technical concept has philosophical roots going back to pre-Socratic days. And of course it has everyday significance, in everyday language. Weatherall would really like to keep it all tied together. While his focus is on the evolution of the concept within physics, he also maintains an eye on how that evolution squares, or fails to square, with what we commonly mean by “nothing”.
The book is not a technical physics book — Weatherall plays to his strengths as a philosopher of science. You won’t find formulas. But you will find what, to me, were some enlightening discussions of physics concepts, kept at a conceptual level. He’s not teaching us the physics itself — he’s tracing the evolution of a concept.
Historically, “nothing” has evolved through long philosophical controversy. Pre-Socratic philosophers like Democritus tried to account for observed physical reality in terms of objects moving through a void. A void was necessary, on those early atomist accounts of motion — if space were filled, there would simply be no room for objects to move. Descartes, as Weatherall recounts, rejected the notion of empty space as incompatible with the essential attribute of spatiality, extension — a space without extension, i.e., empty space, would be a self-contradiction. Newton, though, reclaimed the void as a vital element of his physics, with absolute space and forces acting at distances.
Weatherall gives an excellent account of Leibniz’s disagreement with Newton, on both the very idea of empty space and Newton’s account of motion through absolute space. Leibniz’s objections to the coherence of Newtonian absolute motion have a modern feel to them, appealing to the lack of an assured fixed point (other than a hypothesized invisible grid) from which to observe motion in absolute terms. With all things in motion, no one thing, unless chosen arbitrarily, provides a fixed point from which to observe and measure motion — all measures are relative to the motion of the observer.
But the meatiest part of the discussion starts with Maxwell, and runs through relativity theory and quantum theory. Maxwell brought the notion of fields into the discussion and, with it, revived the idea of a plenum pervading all of space, leaving no part of space truly empty. With relativity, of course, space itself has attributes — a potentially curved geometry that does not depend on the existence of any “things” within it.
And with quantum theory, the everyday notion of “nothing” takes a very serious hit. Even vacuum is characterized by quantum fluctuation. There simply is no fact of the matter about whether a region of space is empty or not until a measurement is made, and the validity of that fact lasts only as long as the measurement itself. Before or after measurements, there is again no fact of the matter.
As Weatherall says, we don’t have a single sense of “nothing” running through all of these physical and philosophical theories, much less one that maintains faith with our everyday notion of nothing as simply the absence of anything. Science, and philosophy as well, demands that such everyday notions “get transformed as they are put to work for scientific purposes.”
What we are left with, I think, is difficult to comprehend. The “nothing” that the quantum theorist studies is not exactly the same nor completely different from the everyday “nothing” that we brought to the discussion as laypersons. It does in fact, in scientific fact, turn out that the “nothing” that strictly contains no things and has no properties doesn’t exist. But it also turns out, plausibly, that what the scientist has done is better describe what we mean by “nothing”, that there is no problem with our everyday concept of “nothing” as complete absence, but that, in scientific contexts, that complete absence isn’t what we think it is.
The book is not a technical physics book — Weatherall plays to his strengths as a philosopher of science. You won’t find formulas. But you will find what, to me, were some enlightening discussions of physics concepts, kept at a conceptual level. He’s not teaching us the physics itself — he’s tracing the evolution of a concept.
Historically, “nothing” has evolved through long philosophical controversy. Pre-Socratic philosophers like Democritus tried to account for observed physical reality in terms of objects moving through a void. A void was necessary, on those early atomist accounts of motion — if space were filled, there would simply be no room for objects to move. Descartes, as Weatherall recounts, rejected the notion of empty space as incompatible with the essential attribute of spatiality, extension — a space without extension, i.e., empty space, would be a self-contradiction. Newton, though, reclaimed the void as a vital element of his physics, with absolute space and forces acting at distances.
Weatherall gives an excellent account of Leibniz’s disagreement with Newton, on both the very idea of empty space and Newton’s account of motion through absolute space. Leibniz’s objections to the coherence of Newtonian absolute motion have a modern feel to them, appealing to the lack of an assured fixed point (other than a hypothesized invisible grid) from which to observe motion in absolute terms. With all things in motion, no one thing, unless chosen arbitrarily, provides a fixed point from which to observe and measure motion — all measures are relative to the motion of the observer.
But the meatiest part of the discussion starts with Maxwell, and runs through relativity theory and quantum theory. Maxwell brought the notion of fields into the discussion and, with it, revived the idea of a plenum pervading all of space, leaving no part of space truly empty. With relativity, of course, space itself has attributes — a potentially curved geometry that does not depend on the existence of any “things” within it.
And with quantum theory, the everyday notion of “nothing” takes a very serious hit. Even vacuum is characterized by quantum fluctuation. There simply is no fact of the matter about whether a region of space is empty or not until a measurement is made, and the validity of that fact lasts only as long as the measurement itself. Before or after measurements, there is again no fact of the matter.
As Weatherall says, we don’t have a single sense of “nothing” running through all of these physical and philosophical theories, much less one that maintains faith with our everyday notion of nothing as simply the absence of anything. Science, and philosophy as well, demands that such everyday notions “get transformed as they are put to work for scientific purposes.”
What we are left with, I think, is difficult to comprehend. The “nothing” that the quantum theorist studies is not exactly the same nor completely different from the everyday “nothing” that we brought to the discussion as laypersons. It does in fact, in scientific fact, turn out that the “nothing” that strictly contains no things and has no properties doesn’t exist. But it also turns out, plausibly, that what the scientist has done is better describe what we mean by “nothing”, that there is no problem with our everyday concept of “nothing” as complete absence, but that, in scientific contexts, that complete absence isn’t what we think it is.
October 22, 2019
It was more of a history of physics (specifically of the key figures and their contributions to the field) than a deep dive on nothingness. So, while I was a little disappointed that Weatherall didn't cover more of nothing, it held my interest and I definitely came away with a better fundamental understanding of physics and the challenges of unifying general relativity and quantum physics. As a layperson in the realm of science, I feel that this understanding speaks highly of the author's ability to present this information in a clear manner, and, although I would've liked more nothing, I admittedly had an easier time making sense of its role in the universe than I would have without the background on the fundamentals underlying it. Great book for anyone looking to better understand the laws of the universe, where they hold up, and where they break down.
June 25, 2022
Interesting discourse on the changes in physics since Newton.
October 8, 2020
Void: The Strange Physics of Nothing by James Owen Weatherall is a historical look at physics and vacua. Weatherall is a physicist, philosopher, and mathematician. He holds graduate degrees from Harvard, the Stevens Institute of Technology, and the University of California, Irvine, where is presently an assistant professor of logic and philosophy of science.
Weatherall takes the reader through the history of physics and in particular empty space. Throughout most of history, plenum or aether was thought to occupy the "vacuum of space". Newton believed there needed to be medium for gravity to interact through. Leibniz, a contemporary and competitor, believed empty space was possible, but he believed God kept it hidden. If man added something to empty space, he would improve on God's creation and that was not possible. It is interesting how religion still played a key role in the cutting-edge science of the time. Newton, however, was no better with his involvement in alchemy, even to the point of mercury poisoning. It is interesting to see what was mixed into science and mathematics and still succeeded.
Void ,next, takes us in the era of relativity and the end of the era of aether. With the curving of space-time, the interaction of gravity could operate through a void. Perhaps the most interesting point is defining empty space. Quantum mechanics picks up after relativity and adds an interesting and very unexpected twist to a vacuum. In addition to radiation-- radio waves and light --through a void, particles could pop in and out of existence randomly. Finally, string theory, not to be outdone, offers 10,500 possibilities to have an empty vacuum in as many universes.
Weatherall presents an interesting study on the history of science. The book reads more like a history study than a science book. This helps in making it easy to read and easy to hold the interest of a non-scientist brain. The conflict between scientists was serious, and failure was devastating to more than a few scientists. The Newton- Leibniz conflict was very bitter. Jordan and Dirac, in competition for an electron theory, was not bitter, but after Dirac’s released his equation, Jordan fell into depression and left physics altogether. The work becomes a quest for some and a place of defense for others. As each new theory makes an appearance the “old guard” is resistant. They have put their entire lives behind their theory, and to be wrong after a lifetime, is devastating.
Void is a worthwhile read for those interested in science, history, or even biography. It was a bit light on the title word but rich in background. It is a book that will make the reader think. I was fairly familiar with the history and science, in layman’s terms, and I still walked away with something. The point that the String Theory offered, in particular, that there are 10,500 universes, many of which we cannot exist in. Perhaps we are not the one in almost an infinite number of chances of existing in a Goldilocks Universe, but rather we exist in one of many possible universes where life is possible-- almost a complete reversal of the odds. My thinking is more amateur and philosophical than scientific but the idea of science is to promote the search for truth and to make one think. A well-written and extremely well-documented science (or history) book for the general public.
Weatherall takes the reader through the history of physics and in particular empty space. Throughout most of history, plenum or aether was thought to occupy the "vacuum of space". Newton believed there needed to be medium for gravity to interact through. Leibniz, a contemporary and competitor, believed empty space was possible, but he believed God kept it hidden. If man added something to empty space, he would improve on God's creation and that was not possible. It is interesting how religion still played a key role in the cutting-edge science of the time. Newton, however, was no better with his involvement in alchemy, even to the point of mercury poisoning. It is interesting to see what was mixed into science and mathematics and still succeeded.
Void ,next, takes us in the era of relativity and the end of the era of aether. With the curving of space-time, the interaction of gravity could operate through a void. Perhaps the most interesting point is defining empty space. Quantum mechanics picks up after relativity and adds an interesting and very unexpected twist to a vacuum. In addition to radiation-- radio waves and light --through a void, particles could pop in and out of existence randomly. Finally, string theory, not to be outdone, offers 10,500 possibilities to have an empty vacuum in as many universes.
Weatherall presents an interesting study on the history of science. The book reads more like a history study than a science book. This helps in making it easy to read and easy to hold the interest of a non-scientist brain. The conflict between scientists was serious, and failure was devastating to more than a few scientists. The Newton- Leibniz conflict was very bitter. Jordan and Dirac, in competition for an electron theory, was not bitter, but after Dirac’s released his equation, Jordan fell into depression and left physics altogether. The work becomes a quest for some and a place of defense for others. As each new theory makes an appearance the “old guard” is resistant. They have put their entire lives behind their theory, and to be wrong after a lifetime, is devastating.
Void is a worthwhile read for those interested in science, history, or even biography. It was a bit light on the title word but rich in background. It is a book that will make the reader think. I was fairly familiar with the history and science, in layman’s terms, and I still walked away with something. The point that the String Theory offered, in particular, that there are 10,500 universes, many of which we cannot exist in. Perhaps we are not the one in almost an infinite number of chances of existing in a Goldilocks Universe, but rather we exist in one of many possible universes where life is possible-- almost a complete reversal of the odds. My thinking is more amateur and philosophical than scientific but the idea of science is to promote the search for truth and to make one think. A well-written and extremely well-documented science (or history) book for the general public.
January 15, 2024
There's an amazing story to be told of the development of the concept of nothingness over the history of Western thought, from the ancient Greeks to the fizzy virtual particles of the modern vacuum. Looking at Weatherall's table of contents, I thought that story would be found here. There are hints of it, to be sure, but nothing comprehensive ever quite coalesces.
Weatherall does a pretty good job with some of the bits he highlights, including Newton, Maxwell, and the productive rivalries between Dirac and Pascual Jordan or Feynman and Schwinger. He's good with the nuts and bolts of how physics gets done professionally. However, his technical accounts of relativity and quantum physics are so abbreviated that it's difficult to grasp the larger picture. Really, he's only interested in providing enough background to argue his point that there are different kinds of nothingness in modern physics, and most of them are hardly a featureless emptiness. That point is definitely well taken, and I liked some of the material on different spacetime geometries (e.g., Schwarzschild, de Sitter, Minkowski, etc.) and their properties even in the absence of matter.
I did not love that none of those came with any kind of visual representation or diagrams. Weatherall's words hardly painted a rich picture, and I struggled at times to imagine what he was describing. That murkiness made this book feel longer than it is. It's a short one, but it doesn't feel like it. I would have gladly traded some of the technical detail in the extensive footnotes for a couple clear depictions.
In the end, I liked this tolerably well, but it's no triumph. Read it if you want a longish essay on nothingness in modern physics, but keep looking if you want a comprehensive picture of that physics, a rich historical account of how physicists arrived at the current state of the art, or a deeper philosophical exploration of what it all means.
Weatherall does a pretty good job with some of the bits he highlights, including Newton, Maxwell, and the productive rivalries between Dirac and Pascual Jordan or Feynman and Schwinger. He's good with the nuts and bolts of how physics gets done professionally. However, his technical accounts of relativity and quantum physics are so abbreviated that it's difficult to grasp the larger picture. Really, he's only interested in providing enough background to argue his point that there are different kinds of nothingness in modern physics, and most of them are hardly a featureless emptiness. That point is definitely well taken, and I liked some of the material on different spacetime geometries (e.g., Schwarzschild, de Sitter, Minkowski, etc.) and their properties even in the absence of matter.
I did not love that none of those came with any kind of visual representation or diagrams. Weatherall's words hardly painted a rich picture, and I struggled at times to imagine what he was describing. That murkiness made this book feel longer than it is. It's a short one, but it doesn't feel like it. I would have gladly traded some of the technical detail in the extensive footnotes for a couple clear depictions.
In the end, I liked this tolerably well, but it's no triumph. Read it if you want a longish essay on nothingness in modern physics, but keep looking if you want a comprehensive picture of that physics, a rich historical account of how physicists arrived at the current state of the art, or a deeper philosophical exploration of what it all means.
October 10, 2017
From the Goodreads blurb:
(Weatherall) takes on a fundamental concept of modern physics: nothing. The physics of stuff—protons, neutrons, electrons, and even quarks and gluons—is at least somewhat familiar to most of us. But what about the physics of nothing? Isaac Newton thought of empty space as nothingness extended in all directions, a kind of theater in which physics could unfold. But both quantum theory and relativity tell us that Newton’s picture can’t be right. Nothing, it turns out, is an awful lot like something, with a structure and properties every bit as complex and mysterious as matter. In his signature lively prose, Weatherall explores the very nature of empty space...
Weatherall kept me thinking that I was at least getting a foggy picture of what was going on as he moved from Newton to string theory, but I sure wouldn't want to have to take an exam on the subject. Very bizarre and counter intuitive stuff. But interesting.
(Weatherall) takes on a fundamental concept of modern physics: nothing. The physics of stuff—protons, neutrons, electrons, and even quarks and gluons—is at least somewhat familiar to most of us. But what about the physics of nothing? Isaac Newton thought of empty space as nothingness extended in all directions, a kind of theater in which physics could unfold. But both quantum theory and relativity tell us that Newton’s picture can’t be right. Nothing, it turns out, is an awful lot like something, with a structure and properties every bit as complex and mysterious as matter. In his signature lively prose, Weatherall explores the very nature of empty space...
Weatherall kept me thinking that I was at least getting a foggy picture of what was going on as he moved from Newton to string theory, but I sure wouldn't want to have to take an exam on the subject. Very bizarre and counter intuitive stuff. But interesting.
Read
July 14, 2026Void: The Strange Physics of Nothing is a nice summary of our understanding of the physical vacuum and the role it plays at each level of physics theory. There is no math, but rather a brief description of the role played by the physical vacuum at each level of theory, from Newtonian mechanics through special relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory to general relativity. I wanted to know the current understanding of the physical vacuum. This book successfully provided that information. But, as I suspected, it is pretty clear that we don't fully understand the physical vacuum. Each different level of physics theory provides a little insight, but there is no comprehensive theory of the physical vacuum.
April 22, 2021
Il titolo è un poco fuorviante del vero contenuto di questo saggio: è una storia della fisica da Newton ai giorni nostri, o quasi, praticamente priva di formule matematiche. Tutto è estremamente discorsivo, e a tratti anche estremamente chiaro. Molti gli aneddoti citati delle vite dei protagonisti, e i contenuti delle loro lettere private, che sono sempre interessanti.
Io ritengo che qualche formula o qualche diagramma non avrebbe guastato, perché se uno vuole saperne qualcosa di più della teoria della Relatività Generale o della teoria Quantistica servono. Ma se uno vuole semplicemente averne una idea, ecco, questo è il testo che fa per lui.
sarebbero 3 stelle e mezzo, ma abbondo.
Io ritengo che qualche formula o qualche diagramma non avrebbe guastato, perché se uno vuole saperne qualcosa di più della teoria della Relatività Generale o della teoria Quantistica servono. Ma se uno vuole semplicemente averne una idea, ecco, questo è il testo che fa per lui.
sarebbero 3 stelle e mezzo, ma abbondo.
September 6, 2017
James Weatherall has written a clear historical account of the concept of "void". The history dates back to the Greeks and continues through to the 21st Century with stops at Newton and Einstein. The ideas in quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics and how the concepts may be utilized in string theory is clear enough for people without a deep mathematical ability. I believe that his book gives a glimpse into some of the most interesting findings by experimental physicists by giving the lay person a understanding of the history of what "void" can mean. Highly recommended.
April 1, 2018
Limited in subject but I'm point
This book does not touch on the full exposition of the various theories of physics. However it does address nothing. That is the explanation of "empty" space. It tangentially talks about relativity and quantum theory, even trying to explain them (not possible within the time given). Without a foreknowledge if the subject matter this book may be confusing. I would say it is a good adjunct to several books by Lawrence Krause.
This book does not touch on the full exposition of the various theories of physics. However it does address nothing. That is the explanation of "empty" space. It tangentially talks about relativity and quantum theory, even trying to explain them (not possible within the time given). Without a foreknowledge if the subject matter this book may be confusing. I would say it is a good adjunct to several books by Lawrence Krause.
February 29, 2020
This book has a misleading title. When I picked it of the shelf, I was under the impression that by the end of it I would know something about nothing (void). Instead I still know nothing about nothing. I guess the only consolation is that nobody else knows as well. Having said that the big is still a good read and almost acts like a primer into why its convoluted when one starts looking into nothing. Definitely worth a read.
October 11, 2023
For the length of the book, it was a good read/discussion about the notion of "nothingness" and "emptiness". The larger philosophical questions/statements implied by the facts is enough to keep you in awe and wondering about the majesty of the Universe, even on a topic that most humans feel familiar with. The book obviously doesn't go into great detail with some aspects, so having a foundational knowledge of physics, and especially quantum physics, will make for a much more enjoyable read.
December 26, 2021
A slim book about the importance of the philosophical concept of "nothing" in the three frameworks of physics—classical, relativistic and quantum. It was an interesting read, but I felt the quantum section went over my head. Weatherall aimed this book for a general audience, but I felt that he should have included some equations to illustrate his points, instead of just alluding to them.
June 20, 2017
Lost me. The problem is that, on order to explain nothing, he first needs to explain everything, which he attempts to do in 250 pages. Probably easy to understand if you already have a physics PhD but I was baffled.
July 5, 2017
I'm a well-informed amateur or lay person when it comes to physics, so my opinion of this book may not be relevant to some. But this book does a marginal job as a survey of physics in general, without ever really getting to the question of "nothing".
July 15, 2022
Weatherall is a professor of logic and philosophy of science. This books is a combination of a history book and a philosophy book. It does have an amazing bibliography and the end notes are very lengthy and detailed.
June 23, 2023
I liked how it was written in a conversational tone which made it much easier to understand. It clearly presented what and who and what is the current state. I liked the read a lot. It also helped that it was so concise.
November 4, 2023
Buon saggio per l'approfondimento storico del contesto personale e intellettuale in cui sono nate le idee della fisica moderna, ma poco spazio per il tema centrale del Nulla, che finisce per essere relegato a considerazioni a margine sullo sfondo di movimenti teorici più significativi.
October 11, 2018
Surprisingly a dull read that seemed to peter out at the end.
November 4, 2018
Very short book, goes quick and no equations. However, I was hoping for a bit more discussion of the actual title, than a historical summary of the theories of gravity and quantum physics.
March 9, 2019
Interesting to see the history of physics covered in the book. Good refresher on general relativity. Highly enjoyed the discussion of strong theory in the epilogue.
April 23, 2019
Fascinating. While I was hoping for more science the politics of science was equally as interesting.
May 30, 2019
That was fun. The succinct take down of string theory at the end was especially good.
November 14, 2020
The joy of physics and what is actually nothing.
August 12, 2022
Poche pagine, di cui troppe dedicate alla storia della fisica, per introdurre il vuoto. Quelle specifiche dedicate al tema, però valgono tutta la lettura.
January 6, 2024
A comprehensive overview of the physics rabbit hole of "nothing". A slow read, but a good one.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews