What do you think?
Rate this book
The Creation
In this investigation into the nature of the cosmos, P.W. Atkins explores the fundamental questions of modern the existence of the universe, time, chance, life and consciousness. Once we understand the building blocks of nature, such as quarks, electrons and the forces that hold them all together, it becomes possible to reconstruct, in principle, the process which first led to elements, then to more complex organisms, culminating in conscious human beings. By claiming that only the very simplest things appeared when the cosmos was formed, P.W. Atkins argues against the need for a creator. He tackles such questions as how coiled space-time emerged by chance out of its own dust, why physical change is always driven by decay and increasing chaos, and how consciousness required both a warm, stable platform like the Earth and a four-dimensional universe of space and time. He examines why light travels in straight lines and why there is only one dimension of time, as well as the most puzzling question of how something can come from nothing. First published in 1981 as "The Creation", this book has been revised ad includes an updated commentary and new chapter which considers how mathematics works as a description of the world and why it may provide the means of explaining the origins of the cosmos and consciousness. Complete knowledge, Atkins believes, is just within our grasp; in substaining that claim, he reveals the full power of modern scientific thinking.
132 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 1981
4 people are currently reading
891 people want to read
About the author
Peter Atkins
209 books203 followersPeter William Atkins is an English chemist and a Fellow of Lincoln College at the University of Oxford. He retired in 2007. He is a prolific writer of popular chemistry textbooks, including Physical Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, and Molecular Quantum Mechanics. Atkins is also the author of a number of popular science books, including Atkins' Molecules, Galileo's Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science and On Being.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
April 13, 2015
With my bio-heavy background, I have a good grasp on the theory of the origin of species. Evolution and natural selection make wonderful sense and are able to occur without supernatural guidance. It's not too demanding on my logic to speculate on an origin of life... all you really need are some replicating organic building blocks (and competition to really get things going). While I am not trained in the science studying the origin of the planet Earth, solar system, and the galaxy, I can grasp them as reasonable consequences of the Big Bang. But what were things like before that bang? If all the matter (and anti-matter?) of the universe was concentrated as a tiny... thing, where did it come from? And the laws of physics, when do they enter the picture? How do we get spontaneous, unprovoked, materialization of universes? At this point my brain starts to reel a bit.
Atkins's brief book provides some welcome guidance. He puts BIG PICTURE ideas in terms that a non-cosmological person can follow (mostly). I admit one of the best aspects are the chapter titles (e.g. Obvious things, Why things change, Where things change, Creating things). Most of the book is laying a foundation of what we know about the simplest of things (quarks) and reality in terms of other dimensions (coming to the conclusion that a timespace of four dimensions is about optimal). He holds that by cutting finer and finer slices of the Mystery of Creation we'll eventually understand it all, and expresses great confidence in this eventuality-- more than I would give. The last few chapters are speculations (he admits) of how the universe might have come into being. The book was not entirely satisfying (but I didn't expect to find the mechanism of creation), but I gleaned some interesting ideas.
Even though the scientific approach to this question involves ample hand-waving, as Atkins insists it is a matter of simplicity. It is hard for us to imagine our universe as originating from a sudden random amalgamation of matter popping into existence (probably after many unsuccessful attempts with 1 and 2 dimensional universes). Yet I find such an explanation far more likely than the alternative, in which a conscious omnipotent being with clear but unknowable intent carefully dictates the creation of matter and the universal laws.
Atkins's brief book provides some welcome guidance. He puts BIG PICTURE ideas in terms that a non-cosmological person can follow (mostly). I admit one of the best aspects are the chapter titles (e.g. Obvious things, Why things change, Where things change, Creating things). Most of the book is laying a foundation of what we know about the simplest of things (quarks) and reality in terms of other dimensions (coming to the conclusion that a timespace of four dimensions is about optimal). He holds that by cutting finer and finer slices of the Mystery of Creation we'll eventually understand it all, and expresses great confidence in this eventuality-- more than I would give. The last few chapters are speculations (he admits) of how the universe might have come into being. The book was not entirely satisfying (but I didn't expect to find the mechanism of creation), but I gleaned some interesting ideas.
Even though the scientific approach to this question involves ample hand-waving, as Atkins insists it is a matter of simplicity. It is hard for us to imagine our universe as originating from a sudden random amalgamation of matter popping into existence (probably after many unsuccessful attempts with 1 and 2 dimensional universes). Yet I find such an explanation far more likely than the alternative, in which a conscious omnipotent being with clear but unknowable intent carefully dictates the creation of matter and the universal laws.
October 30, 2017
Incredibly fascinating, noticeably 'heavy', hugely inspiring. Have to add, I am curious about many positions from the bibliography so I will definitely come back to exploration of space, time and universe very soon.
October 23, 2024
AN UPDATING OF ATKINS’ 1981 BOOK, “THE CREATION”
Peter William Atkins (born 1940) is an English chemist and former Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Lincoln College.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1992 book, “My first visit to the Creation took place in 1981. Then I took the view that there is nothing that cannot be understood, and that the path to understanding is to peel away appearances in order to expose the core, which is always of unsurpassed simplicity… My aim on the first visit was to argue that the universe can come into existence without intervention, and that there is no NEED to invoke the idea of a Supreme Being… There were two varieties of offence that I could discern and which will probably recur. One was the predictable offence taken by those who considered the great questions I touch on as too tender for human trampling… The other variety of offence welled in the hearts of scientists. They considered… that my seemingly incautious extension of current scientific thought burst through the membrane of propriety…
“There are two principal changes in this revision. I have largely rewritten the left-hand pages of commentary, bringing them up to date and adding further elucidation where it was within my grasp. I have also added a new chapter which explores what I regard as perhaps the deepest of all questions: why mathematics works… In conclusion, I have to admit that I am close to the edge of my own understanding in the speculations that fringe and permeate these later chapters… I intend these chapters to be only impressionistic passages that convey what I think may prove to be the general form of the resolution of the questions that have driven and plagued humanity since it dropped, bewildered, from the trees. The true, presumably comprehensible, account of these matters will be available only when mathematically austere versions of them become available. That, I regret, is beyond me.”
He acknowledges in the first chapter, "No one is yet in a position to be definite about the final solution to the problem of cosmogony... and so I have to warn the reader that the argument will increasingly resort to speculation... There are two consequences for the present book. One is that speculation and fact will be tangled together. I shall try to indicate which is which. Another is that there will almost certainly be a sense of disappointment at the end (at least). This is because we do not yet know the whole truth about cosmogony, and therefore the account can hardly be expected to be other than lacking in detail. What I am trying to do... is to show that deep questions about cosmogony can be asked, that in some cases they have already been answered, and that in others science is pointing to the type of answer that may be forthcoming quite soon." (Pg. 6)
He asks, "Suppose you prefer to be an infinitely lazy creator: what is the MINIMUM specification that you can get away with? Need you really go to the trouble of specifying a hundred or so different kinds of atom? Is it possible to specify a mere handful of things, which, if they exist in appropriate amounts, lead first to elements and then to elephants? Can the whole of the universe be taken back to a SINGLE thing, which, if it is appropriately specified, leads inevitably to elephants? Could you (being infinitely lazy) avoid, in fact, specifying and making even that? If you could... there would be no role for you in the creation of your universe. Our task should by now be clear. We have to embark upon the track of the absolute zero of creative involvement in the creation, the absolute zero of intervention... The only faith we need for the journey is the belief that everything CAN be understood and, ultimately, that there is nothing to explain." (Pg. 5-7)
He concludes the chapter, "I am developing the opinion that the only way of explaining the creation is to show that the creator had absolutely no job at all to do, and so might as well not have existed. We can track down the infinitely lazy creator, the creator totally free of any labour of creation, by resolving apparent complexities into simplicities, and I hope to find a way of expressing... how a non-existent creator can be allowed to evaporate into nothing and to disappear from the scene." (Pg. 17)
He states, "The frailty of molecules, though, raises questions. Why has the universe not already collapsed into unreactive slime? If molecules were free to react each time they touched a neighbor, the potential of the world for change would have been realized long ago. Events would have taken place so haphazardly and rapidly that the rich attributes of the world, like life and its own self-awareness, would not have had time to grow. The emergence of consciousness, like the unfolding of a leaf, relies upon restraint. Richness, the richness of the perceived world and the richness of the imagined worlds of literature and art---the human spirit---is the consequence of controlled, not precipitate, collapse." (Pg. 27-29)
Later, he adds, "What wonder there is, should… not be at the benevolence and subtlety of external intervention, for that leads to the unnecessary intrusion of a spirit and the invention of a soul. It should instead be wonder at the realization the underlying simplicity can have such glorious manifestations when elaborately coordinated, and that such coordination can grow through the selection of evolution. The only immortal soul man has is the lasting impression he makes on other men’s minds.” (Pg. 35)
He continues, “That this motiveless, purposeless, mindless, activity emerges into the world as motive and purpose, and constitutes a mind, is wholly due to the complexity of its organization. As symphonies are ultimately coordinated motions of atoms, so consciousness emerges from chaos." (Pg. 37)
He says, “A bleak yet honest view is that living is therefore a struggle… to discard low-quality energy into the surroundings and to absorb high-quality energy from them. In a sense, we corrupt the outside world in order to have an inner life. The chain of consumption … is what has grown up through evolution as an interlocked mechanism of dispersal. There is no need to look for a purpose behind it all: energy has just gone on spreading, and the spreading has happened to generate elephants and enthralling opinions.” (Pg. 37-39)
He asserts, "The singular property of the brain is that its response to circumstance is to a degree under its own control. It can take advantage of opportunities to select paths towards its own annihilation, as in despair or an inclination to martyrdom... These inclinations are consequences of the pre-existing state of the brain, its chemical composition when the thought or inclination emerges and is rendered into action. Free will is merely the ability to decide, and the ability to decide is nothing other than the organized interplay of shifts of atoms responding to freedom as chance first endows them with energy to explore, and then traps them in new arrangements as their energy leaps naturally and randomly away. Even free will is ultimately corruption." (Pg. 39)
In the fourth chapter, he suggests, "I shall attempt to justify the view that, in a sense I wish to be taken as being wholly devoid of overtones of mysticism, space itself is self-conscious.” (Pg. 71) He adds, “I shall argue that not only is a universe with three dimensions of space and one of time the only kind that can survive its own creation, but also that such a universe is the only one that has the capability of becoming self-aware. I begin with self-awareness. While consciousness is plainly an artificial criterion for the viability of a universe, it is undeniably a property of this one... I shall argue that ours is the simplest and possibly the only type of universe ... that can be aware of these other possibilities (as well as being the only type of universe that can be aware of itself)... we shall see that the pre-eminence arrogated by man turns out to be the pre-eminence of his underlying dimensionality." (Pg. 71, 73)
He states, "That other intelligences exist in this universe is now reasonably certain, for our understanding of the formation of stars suggests that accompanying planets are a common feature. That other intelligences do not exist is so improbable as to be unworthy of further qualitative speculation." (Pg. 87)
He adds, “The characteristics of spacetime, the very ones that make it structurally stable, have also happened to permit its evolution to the stage of having outcrops of consciousness. That consciousness is now embedded in us and in others, and is rich enough to be capable of elaborating simplicities into art and simplifying complexities into science.” (Pg. 93)
He summarizes, "We have seen that matter and energy are spacetime, and that the dimensionality of the universe is such as to allow matter not only to exist but also to persist. The slow and interconnected unwinding of the initial creation---what we have argued should be regarded as natural, spontaneous, and purposeless collapse into dispersed and chaotic uniformity---brings for consciousness and crops, purposes and pots, motives and machines, and belief and understanding as ephemeral efflorescences...We have seen that in the creation there needed to be formed space and time… and to be the arena for events, events of such subtlety that in places things become self-aware. In a deep sense, spacetime itself is self-aware." (Pg. 95) Later, he adds, “the deep structure of the brain may be in resonance with the deep structure not only of mathematics but also of the physical universe. But here I run up against a wall.” (Pg. 121)
He concludes the fifth chapter, “The coming into being of space and time is the central event of the creation… we shall have a glimpse of how it may be possible to allow the helping hand of the infinitely lazy creator let slip the last fingernail of assistance. The necessity of the creator will be seen to fade. Then as the creator drops out of involvement, so the universe comes into being without external intervention, out of absolutely nothing.” (Pg. 125)
But later, he admits, “if cosmogenesis does turn out to be like I describe … then this little essay would deserve no more credit than any other mythical account: all credit in science goes properly only to those who claw out every step forward by appealing to publicly assessed experiment and deeply argued mathematics. All armchair speculation, even when it scores a bullseye, is relatively contemptible.” (Pg. 136) He ends the sixth chapter, “the central speculation is that spacetime generates its own dust in the process of its own self-assembly. The universe can emerge out of nothing, without intervention. By chance.” (Pg. 143)
He says in the final chapter, “That such a universe as ours did emerge with exactly the right blend of forces may have the flavor of a miracle, and therefore seem to require some form of intervention. But nothing intrinsically lacks an explanation…. but we can be confident that intervention was not necessary… Chance may have stumbled on fortune… The universe might be a single shot… Dead flat spacetime. In such a universe there is still no purpose behind the benevolence of the forces. It might be chance that has given them, the forces, their strengths and we are the beneficiaries, not knowing otherwise if things had been otherwise, alive through chance.” (Pg. 153-155)
Atkins' prose is frequently more lyrical than it is detailed argument, or scientific evidence. Still, this presentation of scientific atheism will be popular with many materialists and scientific skeptics.
Peter William Atkins (born 1940) is an English chemist and former Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Lincoln College.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1992 book, “My first visit to the Creation took place in 1981. Then I took the view that there is nothing that cannot be understood, and that the path to understanding is to peel away appearances in order to expose the core, which is always of unsurpassed simplicity… My aim on the first visit was to argue that the universe can come into existence without intervention, and that there is no NEED to invoke the idea of a Supreme Being… There were two varieties of offence that I could discern and which will probably recur. One was the predictable offence taken by those who considered the great questions I touch on as too tender for human trampling… The other variety of offence welled in the hearts of scientists. They considered… that my seemingly incautious extension of current scientific thought burst through the membrane of propriety…
“There are two principal changes in this revision. I have largely rewritten the left-hand pages of commentary, bringing them up to date and adding further elucidation where it was within my grasp. I have also added a new chapter which explores what I regard as perhaps the deepest of all questions: why mathematics works… In conclusion, I have to admit that I am close to the edge of my own understanding in the speculations that fringe and permeate these later chapters… I intend these chapters to be only impressionistic passages that convey what I think may prove to be the general form of the resolution of the questions that have driven and plagued humanity since it dropped, bewildered, from the trees. The true, presumably comprehensible, account of these matters will be available only when mathematically austere versions of them become available. That, I regret, is beyond me.”
He acknowledges in the first chapter, "No one is yet in a position to be definite about the final solution to the problem of cosmogony... and so I have to warn the reader that the argument will increasingly resort to speculation... There are two consequences for the present book. One is that speculation and fact will be tangled together. I shall try to indicate which is which. Another is that there will almost certainly be a sense of disappointment at the end (at least). This is because we do not yet know the whole truth about cosmogony, and therefore the account can hardly be expected to be other than lacking in detail. What I am trying to do... is to show that deep questions about cosmogony can be asked, that in some cases they have already been answered, and that in others science is pointing to the type of answer that may be forthcoming quite soon." (Pg. 6)
He asks, "Suppose you prefer to be an infinitely lazy creator: what is the MINIMUM specification that you can get away with? Need you really go to the trouble of specifying a hundred or so different kinds of atom? Is it possible to specify a mere handful of things, which, if they exist in appropriate amounts, lead first to elements and then to elephants? Can the whole of the universe be taken back to a SINGLE thing, which, if it is appropriately specified, leads inevitably to elephants? Could you (being infinitely lazy) avoid, in fact, specifying and making even that? If you could... there would be no role for you in the creation of your universe. Our task should by now be clear. We have to embark upon the track of the absolute zero of creative involvement in the creation, the absolute zero of intervention... The only faith we need for the journey is the belief that everything CAN be understood and, ultimately, that there is nothing to explain." (Pg. 5-7)
He concludes the chapter, "I am developing the opinion that the only way of explaining the creation is to show that the creator had absolutely no job at all to do, and so might as well not have existed. We can track down the infinitely lazy creator, the creator totally free of any labour of creation, by resolving apparent complexities into simplicities, and I hope to find a way of expressing... how a non-existent creator can be allowed to evaporate into nothing and to disappear from the scene." (Pg. 17)
He states, "The frailty of molecules, though, raises questions. Why has the universe not already collapsed into unreactive slime? If molecules were free to react each time they touched a neighbor, the potential of the world for change would have been realized long ago. Events would have taken place so haphazardly and rapidly that the rich attributes of the world, like life and its own self-awareness, would not have had time to grow. The emergence of consciousness, like the unfolding of a leaf, relies upon restraint. Richness, the richness of the perceived world and the richness of the imagined worlds of literature and art---the human spirit---is the consequence of controlled, not precipitate, collapse." (Pg. 27-29)
Later, he adds, "What wonder there is, should… not be at the benevolence and subtlety of external intervention, for that leads to the unnecessary intrusion of a spirit and the invention of a soul. It should instead be wonder at the realization the underlying simplicity can have such glorious manifestations when elaborately coordinated, and that such coordination can grow through the selection of evolution. The only immortal soul man has is the lasting impression he makes on other men’s minds.” (Pg. 35)
He continues, “That this motiveless, purposeless, mindless, activity emerges into the world as motive and purpose, and constitutes a mind, is wholly due to the complexity of its organization. As symphonies are ultimately coordinated motions of atoms, so consciousness emerges from chaos." (Pg. 37)
He says, “A bleak yet honest view is that living is therefore a struggle… to discard low-quality energy into the surroundings and to absorb high-quality energy from them. In a sense, we corrupt the outside world in order to have an inner life. The chain of consumption … is what has grown up through evolution as an interlocked mechanism of dispersal. There is no need to look for a purpose behind it all: energy has just gone on spreading, and the spreading has happened to generate elephants and enthralling opinions.” (Pg. 37-39)
He asserts, "The singular property of the brain is that its response to circumstance is to a degree under its own control. It can take advantage of opportunities to select paths towards its own annihilation, as in despair or an inclination to martyrdom... These inclinations are consequences of the pre-existing state of the brain, its chemical composition when the thought or inclination emerges and is rendered into action. Free will is merely the ability to decide, and the ability to decide is nothing other than the organized interplay of shifts of atoms responding to freedom as chance first endows them with energy to explore, and then traps them in new arrangements as their energy leaps naturally and randomly away. Even free will is ultimately corruption." (Pg. 39)
In the fourth chapter, he suggests, "I shall attempt to justify the view that, in a sense I wish to be taken as being wholly devoid of overtones of mysticism, space itself is self-conscious.” (Pg. 71) He adds, “I shall argue that not only is a universe with three dimensions of space and one of time the only kind that can survive its own creation, but also that such a universe is the only one that has the capability of becoming self-aware. I begin with self-awareness. While consciousness is plainly an artificial criterion for the viability of a universe, it is undeniably a property of this one... I shall argue that ours is the simplest and possibly the only type of universe ... that can be aware of these other possibilities (as well as being the only type of universe that can be aware of itself)... we shall see that the pre-eminence arrogated by man turns out to be the pre-eminence of his underlying dimensionality." (Pg. 71, 73)
He states, "That other intelligences exist in this universe is now reasonably certain, for our understanding of the formation of stars suggests that accompanying planets are a common feature. That other intelligences do not exist is so improbable as to be unworthy of further qualitative speculation." (Pg. 87)
He adds, “The characteristics of spacetime, the very ones that make it structurally stable, have also happened to permit its evolution to the stage of having outcrops of consciousness. That consciousness is now embedded in us and in others, and is rich enough to be capable of elaborating simplicities into art and simplifying complexities into science.” (Pg. 93)
He summarizes, "We have seen that matter and energy are spacetime, and that the dimensionality of the universe is such as to allow matter not only to exist but also to persist. The slow and interconnected unwinding of the initial creation---what we have argued should be regarded as natural, spontaneous, and purposeless collapse into dispersed and chaotic uniformity---brings for consciousness and crops, purposes and pots, motives and machines, and belief and understanding as ephemeral efflorescences...We have seen that in the creation there needed to be formed space and time… and to be the arena for events, events of such subtlety that in places things become self-aware. In a deep sense, spacetime itself is self-aware." (Pg. 95) Later, he adds, “the deep structure of the brain may be in resonance with the deep structure not only of mathematics but also of the physical universe. But here I run up against a wall.” (Pg. 121)
He concludes the fifth chapter, “The coming into being of space and time is the central event of the creation… we shall have a glimpse of how it may be possible to allow the helping hand of the infinitely lazy creator let slip the last fingernail of assistance. The necessity of the creator will be seen to fade. Then as the creator drops out of involvement, so the universe comes into being without external intervention, out of absolutely nothing.” (Pg. 125)
But later, he admits, “if cosmogenesis does turn out to be like I describe … then this little essay would deserve no more credit than any other mythical account: all credit in science goes properly only to those who claw out every step forward by appealing to publicly assessed experiment and deeply argued mathematics. All armchair speculation, even when it scores a bullseye, is relatively contemptible.” (Pg. 136) He ends the sixth chapter, “the central speculation is that spacetime generates its own dust in the process of its own self-assembly. The universe can emerge out of nothing, without intervention. By chance.” (Pg. 143)
He says in the final chapter, “That such a universe as ours did emerge with exactly the right blend of forces may have the flavor of a miracle, and therefore seem to require some form of intervention. But nothing intrinsically lacks an explanation…. but we can be confident that intervention was not necessary… Chance may have stumbled on fortune… The universe might be a single shot… Dead flat spacetime. In such a universe there is still no purpose behind the benevolence of the forces. It might be chance that has given them, the forces, their strengths and we are the beneficiaries, not knowing otherwise if things had been otherwise, alive through chance.” (Pg. 153-155)
Atkins' prose is frequently more lyrical than it is detailed argument, or scientific evidence. Still, this presentation of scientific atheism will be popular with many materialists and scientific skeptics.
March 7, 2021
Not sure why the app is only allowing one star. I'll give it five when it lets me.
In its brevity, it doesn't lose or gloss over anything, but rather science ends up rendered in a sort of poetic way. It did kind of explain how the universe and consciousness could've happened without a creator in a way i hadn't heard all in one place.
"...all credit in science goes properly only to those who claw out every step forward by appealing to publicly assessed experiment and deeply argued mathematics. All armchair speculation, even when it scores a bullseye, is relatively contemptible."
In its brevity, it doesn't lose or gloss over anything, but rather science ends up rendered in a sort of poetic way. It did kind of explain how the universe and consciousness could've happened without a creator in a way i hadn't heard all in one place.
"...all credit in science goes properly only to those who claw out every step forward by appealing to publicly assessed experiment and deeply argued mathematics. All armchair speculation, even when it scores a bullseye, is relatively contemptible."
September 23, 2015
My version--a gift from a physicist--is simply entitled, "The Creation," which is a bit more catchy than the really peculiar title the ISBN search surfaced. Heck, even the name of the author is different, to the point where I wonder if this is even the book I read. But the ISBN is the same, the date of publication the same, the publishing house the same. Most peculiar.
My book--by PW Atkins-- was a bit of early 80s hard science speculation about the creation of a non-theistic universe. Atkins posits a universe devoid of purpose, in which the only reason being exists is to decay.
It's grimly mechanistic, so grim it's almost gleeful, if one can visualize such a thing.
Beyond that, though, there are points where the book just doesn't make sense. Talking about the behavior of H20 in a one-dimensional universe, for example, when you've already established dimensionality as a necessary aspect of particles
Didn't find myself converted or compelled by the argumentation, but some of the images were thought provoking.
My book--by PW Atkins-- was a bit of early 80s hard science speculation about the creation of a non-theistic universe. Atkins posits a universe devoid of purpose, in which the only reason being exists is to decay.
It's grimly mechanistic, so grim it's almost gleeful, if one can visualize such a thing.
Beyond that, though, there are points where the book just doesn't make sense. Talking about the behavior of H20 in a one-dimensional universe, for example, when you've already established dimensionality as a necessary aspect of particles
Didn't find myself converted or compelled by the argumentation, but some of the images were thought provoking.
Read
December 26, 2017It was written quite well, in a way that the average person without a background in the various sciences can easily understand the concept of.
I do feel sad after finishing this book, because the person I inherited this book from is no longer here, and I wish that I could see them again and discuss this book with them. But that's life.
In the meantime: Anti-elephants.
I do feel sad after finishing this book, because the person I inherited this book from is no longer here, and I wish that I could see them again and discuss this book with them. But that's life.
In the meantime: Anti-elephants.
March 20, 2011
A lot of important ideas in this masterpiece!
September 24, 2012
Really thought-provoking in the way that only books you don't totally understand or agree with can be.
November 22, 2013
Velmi stručně shrnutý vznik vesmíru a čím dál komplexnějších struktur, doporučuji všem, co chtějí rychle nabýt povědomí o těchhle věcech :-)
October 26, 2018
3.5 actually
well written book easy to read ...
I loved several parts from the book while I disagreed n other one's
well written book easy to read ...
I loved several parts from the book while I disagreed n other one's
May 6, 2023
Atkins is a distinguished Oxford chemistry professor, but this book is a bit of a disappointment. He sidesteps numerous difficult issues by proclaiming that they actually so simple as to be uninteresting. By keeping the presentation at a non-technical level, it is hard to fact-check many of his arguments. One in particular that stood out for me was his claim that the (+++-) signature of the metric in relativity theory orients time into the present, the future and the past, rather than just defining two disjoint light cones. Any number of his arguments seem to rely on hand-waving rather than solid logic. Unfortunately this means that his good points can get lost in the questionable claims.
June 27, 2021
I have to admit defeat with this book. I have finished it but I am quite convinced it was beyond me. This should not reflect badly on Atkins's writing; more on my limited scientific knowledge. I am sure this is a great book for readers with an advanced and strong scientific background, but it tends to be quite opaque for laypeople like me. Its style is eloquent and mellifluent, yet, besides its dependence on scientific knowledge, it tends to be consistently too abstract. I'm sure that many readers will disagree with me, especially if they are well-versed in mathematics and other sciences. Yet, some others, like me, may find it quite difficult to follow.
August 29, 2018
WOW!
So much has changed since I took physics in high school!!!!!!!!!!!
This was a challenging read for that reason.
So much has changed since I took physics in high school!!!!!!!!!!!
This was a challenging read for that reason.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews