Божественото уравнение: В търсене на Теория на всичко

by Michio Kaku, Мичио Каку

Когато Нютон открива закона за гравитацията, той обединява законите, управляващи небето, със законите, управляващи земята. Оттогава учените вмъкват нови и нови природни сили във все по-универсални теории. Може би най-голямото предизвикателство обаче е постигането на монументален синтез между двете основни теории – на относителността и квантовата теория. Този синтез би бил върховно постижение на науката, дълбоко обединение на всички природни сили в едно красиво, величествено уравнение, което ще разкрие най-фундаменталните тайни на природата: Какво се е случило преди Големия взрив? Какво има от другата страна на една черна дупка? Съществуват ли други вселени и измерения? Възможно ли е да пътуваме във времето? Защо сме тук?

Каку също така представя и разгорещените спорове около тази обединяваща теория, в които Нобелови лауреати заемат противоположни позиции. Това е приковаваща вниманието, завладяваща книга. Залогът е разбирането ни за вселената. Написана с характерния за Каку ентусиазъм и яснота, историята на това епично пътешествие е всъщност историята на Божественото уравнение.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Physics, Philosophy, Audiobook, Astronomy, Popular Science

176 pages, Paperback

First published April 6, 2021

About the author

(Arabic: ميشيو كاكو
Russian: Митио Каку
Chinese: 加來道雄)


Dr. Michio Kaku is an American theoretical physicist at the City College of New York , best-selling author, a futurist, and a communicator and popularizer of science. He has written several books about physics and related topics of science.

He has written two New York Times Best Sellers, Physics of the Impossible (2008) and Physics of the Future (2011).

Dr. Michio is the co-founder of string field theory (a branch of string theory), and continues Einstein’s search to unite the four fundamental forces of nature into one unified theory.

Kaku was a Visitor and Member (1973 and 1990) at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and New York University. He currently holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York.

Reviews

[BlackOxford · Rating 1 out of 5]

Political Aesthetics

Michio Kaku wants to convince those of us who are not physicists that the cosmos is composed of very small vibrations. He starts with establishing the ancient pedigree of this idea and ends up explaining why these vibrations are the basis for not just Einstein’s famous E = m x c squared, but also a unified theory of the four ‘forces’ of gravity, the strong and weak atomic forces, and electromagnetism. For Kaku, String Theory rules; he thinks it might even replace theology!

What I find most interesting about Kaku’s exposition is not the strength of the evidence he presents but the criterion he uses for evaluating this evidence, namely symmetry. In more technical terms, if an equation is “invariant under transformation,” Kaku considers it “beautiful,” and therefore scientifically superior to equations that are less symmetrical. In fact it is clear that what he considers evidential at all is determined by this criterion. Citing the early 20th century mathematician, G.H Hardy as a precedent, Kaku claims symmetry as the sole standard of proof in the arcane world of particle physics.

But even if one accepts Hardy’s mathematical aesthetic as definitive and applicable to all of science, Hardy did not define beauty in mathematics in terms of symmetry but in in terms of patterns of any sort. This is the passage Kaku quotes from Hardy’s A Mathematician’s Apology:

“A mathematician’s patterns, like the painter’s or the poet’s, must be beautiful; the ideas, like the colors or the words, must fit together in a harmonious way. Beauty is the first test; there is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics.”

There are of course any number of patterns which are asymmetrical. In geometry, scalene triangles, parallelograms, and trapezia among many others have no symmetry. In nature, trees, spirals, meanders, waves, foams, tessellations, cracks, and stripes are patterns but not symmetrical. The sponge and coral colonies are asymmetrical animals as are all gastropods such as snails and slugs, not to mention the wrybill, the crossbill and the barn owls among birds and the 100 or so species of male fiddler crabs. Many of these are by any standard except symmetry beautiful. So to claim symmetry as the only form of beauty and therefore the criterion of good science seems more than prejudicial for the rest of Kaku’s argument. It is also a gross abuse of Hardy.

Kaku’s subtly self-serving distortions, in fact, appear as a consistent pattern throughout the book. Here are several examples:

“Ultimately, all the wonders of modern technology owe their origin to the scientists who gradually discovered the fundamental forces of the world.”

Except of course for the very unscientific steam engineers of the 18th century and the almost anti-scientific Edison and Bell for example. Then there is Kaku’s admiration for the Ancient Greek philosophers. Kaku apparently believes that inquiry about the natural world ended with the death of Aristotle:

“Darkness spread over the Western world, and scientific inquiry was largely replaced by belief in superstition, magic, and sorcery.”

Thus ignoring both the Greek superstitions and the rather impressive Roman projects in civil engineering as well as scientific astronomy, mathematics, and geography. Kaku then goes on to describe an idealised scientific enterprise free of nasty unscientific concerns:

“Isaac Newton is perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived. In a world obsessed with witchcraft and sorcery, he dared to write down the universal laws of the heavens and apply a new mathematics he invented to study forces, called the calculus.”

Kaku’s hagiography of Newton is not only trivial but misleading. Newton was also a leading alchemist of his day, and spent more time investigating magic, prophecy and the secrets of the occult than he did on mathematical physics. Kaku goes on to subtly suggest that his choice of symmetry is really only ‘natural’:

“… that is why the Earth is spherical, rather than another shape: because gravity compressed the Earth uniformly.”

But the Earth is not spherical, it is an irregularly shaped ellipsoid whose shape changes continuously. And one final example of Kaku’s pattern of cutting to fit, his fatuous claim that

“… the existence of Newton’s gravitational forces was confirmed by subsequent observation.”

Subsequent observations did no such thing. Observers presumed there were forces and then showed they could be described in the way Newton had formulated. As we know now, gravitational forces simply don’t exist as Newton conceived them.

I know very little about the substance of String Theory or it’s relative merits over its rivals. But my mistrust of Kaku’s account grew as I encountered this more or less continuous stream of questionable claims in areas where I do have some knowledge. Based on prior probabilities therefore, I feel hesitant to accept his view as authoritative. Among other things, Kaku’s idolisation of symmetry looks suspiciously like the Ptolemaic idolisation of circular orbits. I find it difficult to ignore a lurking scientism in the background.

[Brian Clegg · Rating 3 out of 5]

When physicist Leon Lederman wanted to call his book on the elusive Higgs boson 'The Goddam Particle' his publisher objected and instead made it The God Particle. This usage has cropped up a couple of times since in popular science, notably The God Effect on quantum entanglement, and now Michio Kaku is applying it to the concept of a so-called Theory of Everything - a mechanism that pulls together the fundamental forces of nature including gravity. There is no certainty that such a theory is possible, but if it did exist, it would provide the foundation of physics. Even so, it seems unlikely that it would honour the claim in the book's publicity that it would 'fulfil that most ancient and basic of human desires - to understand the meaning of our lives'.

Kaku has worked on string theory - the theory he believes will give us that theory of everything - since the 1960s and is strongly invested in it. He promises us a 'balanced, objective analysis of string theory's breakthroughs and limitations' - but given this comes after him saying that it is the 'leading (and to my mind, only) candidate' for a theory of everything, it's not totally surprising that this feels quite a subjective view. For example, at one point we are told that a concern about string theory is the lack of evidence for the required 10 or 11 dimensions. Kaku points out that, if they exist, they should have a small impact on the force of gravity over small distances. He describes an experiment... where the results are negative. But rather than see this as more indication of the doubtful nature of the theory, he gives it the throwaway line 'But this means only that there are no added dimensions in Colorado.'

When Kaku gets onto what string theory actually is (which doesn't occur until page 141 out of 198), he gives a good high level overview before plunging into some very hand-waving attempts to show why it actually matters (certainly there is no suggestion it gives us a chance to understand the meaning of our lives). What I find disappointing is that there is no attempt to put string theory into context of rival approaches. I know loop quantum gravity, for example, is not a theory of everything, but they can't both hold - yet it never gets a mention. On the plus side, Kaku is honest about the problems of string theory and the lack of supporting evidence - but when, for example, he says that the discovery of supersymmetric particles would support it, but they haven't been found yet, he doesn't say that string theory enthusiasts had expected them to be found by the Large Hadron Collider.

It is also a shame how little detail there is of the development of string theory, what it says and why it, for instance, requires so many dimensions. For a book about a theory of everything, we seem to have almost everything but the theory itself. The reason we don't get into string theory until page 141 is that the majority of the book is pretty much a summary of the history of physics. In his usual flamboyant style, Kaku breezes through the history of science leading up to the development of string theory. Unfortunately, he adopts an approach that would worry historians of science, cherry picking and sometimes inaccurate.

We start with a very old fashioned presentation of the now-dismissed dark ages concept, when classical scientific 'philosophical discussions and debates were lost… Darkness spread over the Western world and scientific inquiry was largely replaced by belief in superstition, magic, and sorcery.' Kaku trots out the familiar myth that the 'chief crime' in Giordano Bruno's heresy trial was 'Declaring that life may exist on planets circling other stars', implies Galileo invented the telescope and blames 'the church' for standard Aristotelean theories such as the unchanging heavens and movement caused by natural tendencies.

When we get onto quantum physics, there are some real oddities. Kaku tells us that quantum effects are rarely seen directly 'because Planck's constant is a very small number and only affects the universe on the subatomic level' - but then trots out the Schrödinger's cat experiment as if it was significant. He gives unchallenged the idea that the Copenhagen interpretation involves 'observation (which requires consciousness)'. He also says Copenhagen has fallen in to disfavour, with the many worlds interpretation now 'more popular' - something that isn't borne out by surveys of physicists.

Overall, then, this is a book that gives a fast, light, readable, but somewhat limited, introduction to physics. As always, Kaku writes with energy, clear enthusiasm and a delight in the wonders that science uncovers. But the book fails to convince either that string theory is valid or that it can deliver anything of the sort of significance Kaku promises by comparing it to the innovation that arose from understanding Newtonian physics, electromagnetism and quantum theory.

[Radiantflux · Rating 2 out of 5]

20th book for 2021.

A very superficial overview of the history of physics—with the last chapter giving a superficial overview of the field of string theory. A final chapter discusses God in light of modern physics.

A waste of time if you've read any other popular book on physics. This mercifully short book feels like it was written for the money.

2-stars.

[Mansoor · Rating 1 out of 5]

Michio Kaku's out of control.
—Eric Weinstein


Multiverse as the harmonizer of world faiths:

"the multiverse idea allows one to combine both the creation mythology of Christianity with the Nirvana of Buddhism into a single theory that is compatible with known physical laws."

[Carol Turner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oddly philosophical. And very soothing in the time of COVID-19 and political insurrection. When weighed against the eons, our problems seem smaller. Highly recommended, even for those, like me, who are not physics-literate.

[Jessaka]

Too Confusing

I always pick up books about quantum physics if God is in the title, but I never understand them. Even though I find quantum physics fascinating, it is still a waste of time, as if I should be doing something else. Here is a little of what I got out of the God thing:

Einstein believed in a God, but not a personal God. Just a creator. He wrote a letter that went up for auction after he died. In 2018 it went for 2.6 million dollars. Einstein stated, “There are two kinds of Gods. First, there is the personal God. The God that you pray to, the God of the Bible who spites the Philistines and awards the believers. He did not believe in that kind of God. He believed in the God of Spinoza, that is, the God of order in a Universe, that is beautiful, simple, and elegant.” This God was not personal.

Next, the author quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas. While the author is an agnostic, he feels “we still need “to confront St Thomas Aquinas’ proof that there must be a first mover. In other words, where did everything come from?” And then as he is trying to answer this question, he loses me again. I had an atheist tell me that gravity created everything. I wanted to say, “What created gravity.” But he would have said, “It was always there.” And I would have said, “That is what they say about God.”

[Mircea Petcu · Rating 5 out of 5]

O pledoarie pentru teoria corzilor

[Cami L. González · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5/5 (quizá hasta 5, tengo que pensarlo)

Este libro funciona como un resumen desde los inicios de la física e incluso de la ciencia, pasa por los grandes descubrimientos, como las leyes de Newton, la relatividad y la física cuántica, hasta el estado actual de las teorías y los experimentos detrás.

"El universo es una sinfonía. Y la mente de Dios, de la que Einstein escribió de manera tan elocuente, es música cósmica que resuena por todo el espacio-tiempo"

Todos sabemos que la física es un campo complicado, sobre todo si se habla de la relatividad y la física cuántica, porque parece algo más cercano a la filosofía que lo que comúnmente entendemos como ciencia. Sin embargo, el autor llevó todo a un lenguaje coloquial y sencillo de entender sin caer en tecnicismos complicados, pero, a la vez, no perdió el tono serio y preciso detrás. Así, logró formular un relato entretenido y dinámico, que contenía mucha información densa sin caer en volverlo pesado.

"Una nueva verdad científica no triunfa convenciendo a sus oponentes y haciendo que vean la luz, sino que sus oponentes terminan por morirse, y crece una nueva generación que está familiarizada con ella"

Por otro lado, a pesar de que los descubrimientos no ocurrieron de una manera del todo lineal, logró seguir un camino directo con unas pequeñas vueltas, que no llegaron jamás a hacer que nos perdiéramos en lo que quería contar. Incluso nos habló directamente, al lector, para decirnos que recordáramos ciertos conceptos o que esperáramos otros que explicará más adelante, por lo que tuvo un tono cercano de un profesor amable haciendo una cátedra para todo público. Incluso hizo pequeñas bromas o utilizó comparaciones coloquiales y de simple entendimiento para acompañar sus explicaciones.

"De esta manera, la gravedad cuántica, en lugar de ser un ejercicio matemático en el espacio-tiempo de once dimensiones, se convierte en un bote salvavidas cósmico interdimensional que permite a la vida inteligente eludir la segunda ley de la termodinámica y huir hacia un universo mucho más cálido.
Así, la teoría del todo es algo más que un bello constructo matemático: podría llegar a ser nuestra única salvación"

El libro es muy corto y, debido a la forma en que está escrito, no llegó a hacerse pesado. Eso sí, tengo que admitir que ciertos conceptos tuve que leerlos varias veces porque aunque los entendía, no lograba comprenderlos de verdad. Creo que es un libro que me gustaría releer, quizá no entero, pero sí los capítulos finales para poder dimensionar todo lo que dijo.

No es un libro que venga a enseñar física como tal, tengo una base detrás y por eso pude seguirlo bien, no sé cómo será para una persona sin esa base (y me gustaría saberlo, para determinar qué tan coloquial y cercano es en realidad). Sin embargo, me pareció un resumen basante claro y al grano de los hechos más importantes de la física hasta el día de hoy. Que, además, funcionaba bien como un relato por la forma en que el autor concatenó los distintos hechos.

La ecuación de Dios es un ensayo que resume los descubrimientos físicos más importantes hasta la fecha y los hila en una historia entretenida y fácil de seguir mientras el autor nos guía en esta búsqueda de una teoría del todo.

[Tatiana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hey, I don’t claim to be a physics wiz, and the string theory with all its multiverses and time travel sounds a bit sus to me. I will need to see some actual evidence that supports it. But reading this book was fun. Universe is a wondrous thing. And so is science.

[Matthew Ted · Rating 4 out of 5]

33rd book of 2023.

There a number of poor reviews for this book, mostly down to the marketing of the book and false expectations. This book was published in 2021 and ‘promised’ a certain degree of new knowledge in string theory and physics in general. There is a joke that there is never news in physics. I went into this book expecting essentially the same things I’ve already read about. That is fine with me. I am building the foundation of my fairly sparse knowledge and reading the same theories and ideas told many times (always simply) helps solidify them in my brain. I was pleased with what The God Equation offered, which was more or less the same sort of things I’ve already read but presented in a new way, and in a new voice. Kaku has clean prose and some of his metaphors for different theories were as good or better than ones I’ve read previously. Over 200 or so pages he covers a lot of scientific ground, working from the past to the present, giving both a history of physics (a complaint from reviewers) and an explanation. Within he talks about general relativity, quantum mechanics, gravity, renormalisation theory, unified field theory, subatomic particles, quantum chromodynamics, the Standard Model, the Large Hadron Collider, the Higgs boson, closed timelike curves, black holes, time travel, wormholes, string theory, M-theory, etc.

And as per usual, reading it has brought about that strange and terrifying sensation of awe*. Kaku recalls, at one point, about how an old teacher of his once told the class that ‘God so loved the Earth that he put the Earth “just right” from the sun. Not too close, or the oceans would boil. Not too far, or the oceans would freeze.’ He goes on to quote physicist Freeman Dyson who said, “it seems as if the universe knew that we were coming”;

for example, if the nuclear force were a bit weaker, the sun would never have ignited, and the solar system would be dark. If the strong nuclear force were a bit stronger, then the sun would have burned out billions of years ago […] Similarly, if gravity were a bit weaker, perhaps the Big Bang would have ended in a Big Freeze, with a dead, cold expanding universe. If gravity were a bit stronger, we might have ended in a Big Crunch, and all life would have been burned to death […] So the universe is one gigantic crapshoot, and we won the roll. But according to the multiverse theory, it means we coexist with a vast number of dead universes.

Last year, my girlfriend and I went to see physicist Brian Cox give a three-hour lecture on a number of things, but namely black holes and multiverses. He spoke (it seemed at the time facetiously, but perhaps not) about us being holograms. His description of it at the time went over my head, but here Kaku brings up a similar idea and this time it makes perfect sense.

When we walk down the street, our shadow follows us and moves like us, except the shadow exists in two dimensions. Likewise, perhaps we are shadows moving in three dimensions, but our real selves are moving in ten or eleven dimensions.

Kaku professes to be an agnostic in the concluding chapters, which turn their eye on God/the creator. I also use the term agnostic to describe myself, because although I went through a phase in my teenage years of scoffing at the concept of God, the more I’ve grown up, the more I’ve realised there are simply things we cannot know. In the future we will know more, perhaps, but the existence of God is, as Kaku says, ‘unproveable’. He writes a nice line at some point about the LISA, saying, perhaps when something is more advanced than the LISA, ‘one might be able to get baby pictures of the universe. And perhaps even find evidence of the umbilical cord connecting our infant universe to a parent universe.’ There is something comforting about even our universe having a parent universe, as if that could save us from its fate: becoming a ‘lifeless, supercold sea of drifting subatomic particles.’

____________________
*At the centre of our own Milky Way lies a monster black hole whose mass is two to four million times that of our sun. It is located in the constellation Sagittarius. (Unfortunately, dust clouds obscure the area, so we cannot see it. But if the dust clouds were to part, then every night, a magnificent, blazing fireball of stars, with the black hole at its centre, would light up the night sky, perhaps outshining the moon. It would truly be a spectacular sight.)

[Ashlee Bree · Rating 3 out of 5]

Former English major or not, I have a penchant for - a gravitational pull toward, rather - the physics of the universe. I love to read about it. To sink into its theoretical orbit. Though I may not always be able to fully wrap my mind around the minutiae of how it all works with fermions and bosons, with spin or half spin, with theories postulating a ten or eleven dimension multiverse (my brain explodes trying to imagine such a thing), I know there are few writers out there who can break down the science into shrewd, digestible atoms of information for me better than Michio Kaku.

The man is a down-to-earth wizard when it comes to flushing out cosmology. Fusing acumen with relatable metaphor, and fact with explanation, he never bores me.

The God Equation is different from other titles of his I've read in the past, however.

I say that because this reads a little like a brief history, like a beginners almanac of science that succinctly details the journey as well as the landmark discoveries and contributions physicists have made, or are making, as they continue their hunt for a theory of everything. (Because, no, unfortunately scientists haven't found a way to fuse relativity with quantum yet. But they're trying!)

Reading this book was like riding on a space shuttle that traveled from backwards to forwards in time. Why? I got to see clip or two of nearly everything.

It begins with Newton and Einstein, veers into quantum mechanics, dips into dark matter, energy, black holes, then finishes with a perusal of string theory to show how far we've come in our understanding of the physics of the universe and how far we still have to go.

I liked how Kaku took me on a tour of some of physics' Biggest Moments in the past and present. Progressing chronologically allowed him to explain significant concepts, like Einstein's theories of relativity, like the Higg's boson, like symmetry, and also to build off of them to show how they could or will fit into a unified theory of the universe.

As is typical with his work, Kaku managed to probe comprehensive cosmological concepts with accessible narration, succinctness, and delicacy. The text itself was equal parts instructive and absorbing. He made explanations of gravity, quantum, and nuclear forces not only comprehensible to amateurs like me everywhere *waves hello* but compelling, too. And he did so without once compromising the density of the subject matter.

Who knows, it could take years, centuries, to happen, or we could be much closer to hammering out that God Equation than we think! 3.5 stars

Many thanks to NetGalley and Doubleday Books for the ARC in exchange for my review.

BOOK REVIEWS

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 4 out of 5]

More than 2,000 years ago, the ancient Greeks asked a simple question: What is the world made of? In setting out to provide an answer using only the tools of logic and reason—and guided by careful observation—the Greeks set humanity on an epic journey spanning thousands of years to uncover the secrets and fundamental composition of the universe.

The Greeks suspected that—behind all the complexity and apparent diversity of nature—the universe is composed of a smaller set of simpler elements that obey natural, rather than supernatural, laws. Since then, philosophers and scientists throughout the ages have sought the holy grail of all science—the long-coveted theory of everything that can explain the universe in its entirety, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest galaxies and beyond.

This incredible story of scientific discovery and human ingenuity is the topic of physicist Michio Kaku’s latest book, The God Equation: The Quest for a Theory of Everything.

While not the first book to recount the history of physics, The God Equation does uniquely capture the central role of unification in physics. Kaku demonstrates how the major advances in physics have always followed the unification of forces and concepts, captured in beautiful, symmetrical equations.

The story of unification—like so many others—begins in ancient Greece, where philosophers made the attempt to unify nature’s diversity into a single, fundamental substance. Thales of Miletus, often described as the first philosopher, proposed that all matter was made of water, while his student Anaximander thought the substance was an indefinite material called Apeiron. Anaximenes, Anaximander’s student, identified the fundamental substance as air, while Heraclitus thought it was fire.

While ultimately off-the-mark, these philosophers introduced a critical idea: that hidden beneath the apparent diversity of nature is a single substance, and, further, that all physical phenomena operate according to natural, rather than supernatural, laws. This eventually led to ancient Greece’s crowning scientific hypothesis: the atomic theory of matter. The ancient Greek conception of an atom was, of course, very different from the modern view, but the idea that there is an invisible, indestructible substrate to reality that operates according to rational mathematical laws is the foundation for all future advances in physics.

As kaku wrote:

“So at least two great theories of our world emerged from ancient Greece: the idea that everything consists of invisible, indestructible atoms and that the diversity of nature can be described by the mathematics of vibrations [as established by Pythagoras when he discovered the relationship between musical notes and scales and the physical vibrations of strings].”

Unfortunately, the rise of Christianity put a stranglehold on the rational and mathematical investigation of the world for about 1,000 years. In fact, it was not until the 15th century Renaissance—or the rediscovery of classical learning and culture—that humanity would once again break free of the shackles of superstition to pursue the project of unification.

The reintroduction of classical learning—and the idea that humans could transcend the teachings of the past and make progress in knowledge—led straight to Isaac Newton, who took the principle of unification to the next level. Building on the work of his predecessors, Newton demonstrated, through his universal laws of motion and gravity, that nature operates according to precise mathematical laws and that these laws hold anywhere in the universe. In other words—contrary to the religious teachings at the time—there were not separate laws for the earthly and heavenly realms, but rather one set of laws applicable across all of space and time. It’s hard to imagine how revolutionary this idea must have been to those living in the 17th century.

Newtonian physics—the driving force behind the industrial revolution and the operation of all mechanical devices—unified all natural phenomena anywhere in the universe as conforming to the same mathematical laws and principles. At the time, it may have seemed that Newton had, in fact, discovered the final theory of everything. But as scientific knowledge progressed, problems with Newton’s theory would emerge, as Albert Einstein would later demonstrate.

The next major milestone in unification came with James Clerk Maxwell’s unification of electricity and magnetism. In formulating the classic theory of electromagnetic radiation, Maxwell was able to show that electricity, magnetism, and light are all manifestations of the same phenomenon. Once again, apparently disparate elements of nature turned out to be, in reality, unified under a single mathematical framework.

There was a problem, however. The twin pillars of physics at the time—Newton’s laws and electromagnetism—turned out to be fundamentally incompatible, as Albert Einstein was to discover. In brief, since the speed of light must remain constant (according to Maxwell’s equations), space and time cannot be absolute (as described by Newton’s laws). And so Newton—long considered the greatest scientist of all time—turned out to be wrong, or at least his laws were incomplete.

In resolving the paradox, Einstein introduced yet another process of unification: this time, the unification of space and time and matter and energy, as captured in the theories of special and general relativity.

It turns out that space and time, contrary to what Newton believed, are not absolute; rather, spacetime is a single four-dimensional property of the universe that bends and curves and expands and contracts, and it is this curvature that creates the illusion of gravitational force. The sun, for example, does not “pull” the earth towards it with the force of gravity; instead, the mass of the sun warps spacetime—like a bowling ball set in the middle of a trampoline—and the planets, including earth, orbit this curved path.

Einstein also set out the equivalence of matter and energy in the famous equation E=MC2 that demonstrates that matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. This explains, among other things, why the sun shines (some of the mass of the hydrogen gets converted to energy at very high temperatures), and how atomic bombs work.

But this isn’t the end of the story. Einstein would spend the rest of his life trying (and failing) to pursue the final project of unification: the unification of general relativity (gravity) with the most mysterious scientific branch of all—quantum mechanics.

This is where we stand today. General relativity accurately describes large-scale phenomena, such as orbiting planets and the expansion of the universe, and is responsible for technologies such as GPS navigation, while quantum mechanics is equally successful at predicting small-scale phenomena such as atomic motion and decay and is responsible for various electronic technologies including the transistor, the laser, the electron microscope, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

The problem is, while these two theories have been experimentally verified and are practically useful, they are also fundamentally incompatible, and present competing views of nature. Relativity, representing the force of gravity, presents a smooth, deterministic universe, while quantum mechanics, representing the three other physical forces (electromagnetism and the nuclear forces), presents a non-deterministic universe guided by the laws of probability and other counterintuitive laws that do not hold when scaled up.

We therefore find ourselves, as Kaku points out, in an analogous situation as the one faced by Einstein. As Kaku wrote:

“We saw earlier that around 1900, there were two great pillars of physics: Newton’s law of gravity and Maxwell’s equations for light. Einstein realized that these two great pillars were in conflict with each other. One of them would have to collapse. The fall of Newtonian mechanics set into motion the great scientific revolutions of the twentieth century.”

It seems as if history may be repeating itself. We currently have two great pillars of physics (relativity and quantum mechanics), and, since they are incompatible, it seems that one must fall if we are to ever achieve the next and final step in the unification project: the unification of all known forces into one mathematical equation—the God equation.

Kaku believes that we will eventually achieve this final grand unification and that it will be represented by some form of string theory, which replaces the point-like particles of particle physics with one-dimensional objects called strings. The vibrations of these strings are thought to account for all other emergent properties, including particle mass and charge and even gravity, thus providing a unified framework for all four physical forces. The problem is, string theory introduces an additional ten dimensions and, most critically, is impossible to directly test at the scales in which it deals. String theory therefore suffers from the following paradox: if it’s true, it’s too inaccessible to verify.

As Kaku admits, a particle accelerator the size of our galaxy would have to be built to directly test the theory. Still, he is confident that the theory can eventually be tested and confirmed via more indirect methods, or perhaps even mathematically.

The other possibility is that we’ve simply reached the limits of our understanding. Just as you can’t teach a dog calculus, perhaps we don’t have the cognitive or perceptual capacity to achieve a God-like perspective on the complete workings of the universe. After all, physicists know that dark energy—the mysterious force that drives the expansion of the universe but that we know very little about—makes up 68 percent of the universe. Additionally, dark matter, which is equally mysterious, makes up another 27 percent. So that means, everything on earth plus everything else we’ve ever observed with all our instruments adds up to less than 5 percent of the universe. It’s little surprise, then, that the theory of everything eludes us.

Kaku would point out, however, that decades and centuries can pass before the next great scientific revolution or between the proposal and confirmation of theories. Black holes, for example, were first predicted in 1783 by John Michell, but the first conclusive pictures of their event horizons were not produced until 2019, 236 years later.

String theory was first proposed only 60 years ago, in the 1960s. Perhaps we are still waiting for its confirmation. Some believe that, given the difficulty of directly testing string theory, we will be waiting indefinitely, but we should keep in mind that major scientific revolutions are rarely predictable.

We must also consider the following question: If we can’t test string theory directly, can we prove it mathematically, and, if so, does a mathematically consistent view of the universe necessarily correlate with its actual workings?

Alternatively, will some as of yet undeveloped theory unite the physical forces, or even demonstrate that either relativity or quantum mechanics is, in fact, wrong or incomplete, just as Newtonian physics was proven incomplete by Einstein in the early twentieth century? These are fascinating, open questions that are a long way from being resolved.

[Donald Lee · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very disappointed with the book. I was looking for new insights into string theory beyond what was described in Brian Green’s book from a decade ago. Two thirds of this book is a history of physics. The last third had little or no new insights into string theory. I wonder if this is a commentary on the field’s progress.

[Jacques Coulardeau · Rating 4 out of 5]

GOD IS A CONSTRUCT? JUST LIKE PHYSICS

All that Michio Kaku says about physics is quite well-informed. After all, he is a physicist. The question we have in the front section of our mind all the time is “Why does Michio Kaku look for the God Equation.? What does God have to do with physics? The answer only comes late in chapter seven, page 189: “I am an agnostic.” What is an agnostic? It is not an atheist. An atheist negates the existence of God, and thus by this negation gives that God some consistency since you do not negate something that does not exist. You do not need to do that. You do not need to negate the existence of lunar satellites, because there is none. An agnostic does not negate the existence of God but considers it has no importance at all for him or her. But this is a figure of speech from Michio Kaku on page 189 because on page 191 he quotes and uses the “five ways” of Saint Thomas Aquinas, and he does not neglect the “sainthood” of the Christian philosopher or theologian. His agnosticism is the introduction to Thomas Aquinas. Hence definitely, Michio Kaku is not an agnostic, at least no longer in this seventh chapter because he centers his thinking, then, on God and both his existence and his nature. I would like to just concentrate on this point.

He starts very badly by stating there are two Gods when in fact he states three different Gods. But he is thinking binary. Couldn’t we say bipolar?

“There are really two kinds of God… First, there is the personal God, the God you pray to, the God in the Bible [and that’s the second type of god that Kaku does not count though he identifies it, my specification],] who smites the Philistines and rewards the believers. He did not believe in that God. He did not believe that the God who created the universe interfered in the affairs of mere mortals… [second, in Kaku’s count, third in my count, my specification], the God of Spinoza… the God of order in a universe that is beautiful, simple, and elegant. The universe could have been ugly, random, chaotic, but instead, it has a hidden order that is mysterious yet profound… Did God have a choice in creating the universe?” (page 184-185)

Here is his vision of God at three levels
1- the personal God I pray to. Note it has no obligation to be Biblical.
2- the Biblical God that meddles with the affairs of mortals. Note it has no obligation of being Biblical; such gods exist in all religions that state the existence of God.
3- the God of Spinoza: order, beauty, simplicity, and elegance. Note it has no obligation of being Spinoza’s, and as a physicist, Michio Kaku should define the universe as being phylogenetic, a word he never uses, and phylogeny states that evolution and all living phenomena produce ordered evolving cycles that are beautiful, simple, and elegant, even when they are apparently chaotic like Brownian motion. Brownian motion is the ra

PHYSICS CAN BE AN ENSLAVEMENT

This book is essential if you want to understand something in the field of physics and mathematics as used in physics in the very immediate present situation in the world as for what we may know about the vast phylogeny of this universe in which we live.

Before anything, we have to say as clearly as it can be said that the book leads to an absolutely positive conclusion about the phylogeny of this universe. The Big Bang theory, the supposed “origin” of it, is not at all and cannot be in any way the starting point of the existence of the universe as if before there was nothing. The author never asks the question about the phylogeny that led to the Big Bang. He is satisfied with asking the question: “What was before the Big Bang?” This question is incorrect from a scientific point of view. We cannot in the physical world go backward in time because time does not exist in nature. Only duration exists and duration is oriented in the only direction phylogeny knows. Every phenomenon in nature follows a clear cycle of development, cycles that can be reproduced in many ways and fields and these cycles cannot turn backward and they can only have a duration that can vary according to the concrete surrounding conditions, like heat and drought for plants or insects and animals that depend on the plants concerned to survive and reproduce. It is clear the cycle “egg-chick-chicken-hen-or-cock-egg” cannot in any way go backward, except, as Kaku says once if it is captured on a video. The cycle does not go backward but the video can. This is essential because the video is not the cycle, it is only a pictorial animated capture of the cycle. We will come back to this when we discuss the dropping of a book in a black hole.

So, the proper question is “What phylogenetic process can, from what existed before to what existed after, enable the emergence of the Big Bang (I accept the concept though we should discuss it) and what it brought to existence? Kalu never uses the words “phylogeny” and “emergence.” He is totally obnubilated by words and phrases, even concepts, like “beginning,” “start,” “begin,” “was born,” etc. The Big Bang cannot be said to be the beginning or the moment when the Universe came to existence or life, was born in a way, because the universe was not born then and there. The present universe we are exploring existed in what existed before the Big Bang and what existed before the Big Bang made the emergence of the Big Bang and the subsequent universe possible. We are here in a long phylogenetic process that has no beginning and that has no end, in physics terms, but not in mathematical terms. We all know the very great human invention that counting is, hence numeration and numbers. It starts with zero and then grows up one by one till no end, and before zero it can go back from minus one to minus infinity. Apart from a non-statable initial point in minus infinity or the non-statable terminal point in plus infinity, both being infinite, hence in no way the first or the last points of the infinite numeration, we cannot even consider the mathematical number 0 as the beginning of anything since zero is not a number. It is only a digit that states the inversion point between the negative infinity and the positive infinity, hence the reversal of the minus sign into the plus sign. There is no year zero. It is only the inversion point between BCE and CE. BCE has no end in the past and CE has no end in the future. Kaku is not 100% clear on this point.

He tries to follow the development of physics and as an English-speaking and American-educated Japanese American, he ignores that an equation is an algebraic formula or function that covers both algebra and descriptive geometry. Newton did not invent this. Newton is not the father of physics. He could never have done what he did, invented the thermodynamic formula of the first form of physics if zero had not been imported from the Middle East (“al gebra” means “the zero” in Arabic) and integrated into arithmetic and mathematics by Descartes who implemented this development into what we know today as algebra and descriptive geometry that calculated areas and volumes in algebraic terms, formulas. This also leads to algebraic functions that can describe the trajectory of a cannonball after being fired in agreement with the inclination of the cannon, the power of the powder charge, and the weight of the cannonball. In the same way, the function that describes the fall and acceleration of a falling object according to the weight, volume, mass, exterior surface, and of course outside circumstances, a function that enables us to calculate the gravity or gravitational attraction that makes the object fall. This development was made possible by René Descartes as for algebra, hence algebraic formulas, and functions, with a little help from Blaise Pascal who proved the existence of the atmosphere and its weight or pressure, the atmospheric pressure that was a lot lower on top of the Puy de Dôme next to Clermont Ferrand than in Clermont Ferrand itself, more than one thousand meters lower. In the same way, the absence of Copernicus in the account of astronomy and its development is quite regrettable.

After Newton and its pair gravity-speed, he jumps to Faraday-Maxwell and their pair electricity-magnetism with the concept of field. He introduces then the concept of symmetry as being of the basic form A + B = Constant. This principle is fundamental in thermodynamics. If you want the cannonball to reach a certain speed as it goes out of the cannon, you have to increase the quantity of powder if the mass of the cannonball goes up. This example shows at once that A + B = Constant is not the proper formulation. For a constant result, we need to take into account the proportionality that governs the two elements concerned. In some cases, it is proportionality that makes A grow in proportion with B. The case of the rectangle triangle is different. One angle is a right angle (90°) and since the total value of the sum of the three angles of a triangle is 180° the two non-right angles vary in proportion, if one grows, the other goes down. In the same way, the sides are connected since the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the two legs or catheti of the right angle. But Kaku only takes into account this rectangle triangle, and not what is essential in thermodynamics, the proportionality of two elements connected by a certain operation that has to have a constant result. That would have brought him to question the principle of symmetry (which is, at best, one particular case) and he would have realized that the important element here is not the binary vision of the word symmetry but phenomena that are ternary by definition. If we spoke in terms of algebraic application of the mathematician H.B. Curry, we have a basically ternary system: an operator and an operand connected by an application that is going to produce an image of the operand that integrates the operator. A simple formula would be :

Δ (nominal adjective) X {operation: to generate a complex Noun Phrase} (noun) Y
= [NP (nominal adjective + noun)] XY

In plain English:

Δ (white, adjective) X {generate NP} (cat, noun) Y = [NP (white + cat) XY
hence “white cat”

This binarism is all the more bothering or even disquieting because after Einstein’s weak and strong nuclear force, and his two theories of special relativity and general relativity, and a third theory that was never reached or completed, we get the development of the Quantum theory, hence of Quantum physics, though in this theory the missing element is the nuclear force. This quantum theory will lead to the development of our modern communication technology. But the impossibility to integrate gravity in this theory led to new developments and the main one is the string theory. With it, we enter grounds that are in no way proved and observable. We are in a purely mathematical theory. I am quite willing to accept the fact that in the past many predictions and theories were only mathematically true but could not be proved or the phenomena they implied witnessed, yet some of these theories were finally proved true a century later. But I am bothered again by the concept of truth. The theory is only an abstract conceptualized representation of natural phenomena, but it is not the phenomena themselves. The whole history of physics is a succession of theories that were proved to be at least limited if not openly false by further theories coming later. Instead of false and true, we should speak of effective or giving the humans who use them a real power on some phenomena in nature. But at the same time, we should consider the negative consequences this effectiveness can bring in the world by breaking the phylogenetic balance or equilibrium of nature like the production (in fact most of the time the liberation) of carbon dioxide from the natural storing locales and entities, and this liberation of carbon dioxide endangers the planet in its own existence and human life itself. Humanity has so far always followed the theories without considering the negative consequences. It is maybe high time to finally consider the theories – hence human actions – have to be articulated onto the phylogenic equilibrium of the planet in order not to disturb it. At the same time in long duration, the universe, and the planet, have been activated by phylogenic cycles, each cycle coming to a point of change that required some corrections, and the planet, or the universe, have always found a corrective development that may include the disappearance of some forms of life like the dinosaurs or the mammoths. We have to consider corrective phenomena like pandemics (rather easy to cope with thanks to medicine), drought, and rising ocean water levels that may bring massive famines and massive migrations that may in their turn bring massive defensive wars from the populations that would feel invaded by these unwarranted migrations. Such phenomena may bring the basic correction necessary to cope with the problem: massively reduce the population on the planet. And in such situations, the use of nuclear weapons is just some kind of accidental circumstance.

All these questions are part of the civil responsibility of scientists who have to think about the future of the planet, the future of the population, etc. Only a very limited number of people might be able to afford to move to other planets, and what would the consequences of a generalized nuclear conflict on the earth be for the earth itself and the universe?

That’s where we should discuss the very primitive capture of time in this book. No, we cannot go back in time for a very simple reason: time is a human concept, and it has nothing to do with nature. Duration is the natural dimension we are speaking of, and this duration is based on cycles, natural cycles of all sorts from the lunar cycle to the season cycle to the menstrual cycle to the aging cycle, etc. We used these natural cycles to quantify this duration and invent time. But time is seen as absolutely constant, even though most cycles are not properly measured and require some time corrections like leap years and the correction when passing centuries and millennia. Even the spinning of the earth is not regular and our quantification of it requires some corrections. The invention of GMT enables these corrections to happen without anyone really knowing about it since all clocks in the world are plugged onto GMT and a change of one or two seconds, when necessary, goes absolutely unnoticed. The fact that when traveling in space, the ten years it may take in human earthen time, will only be experienced as a duration of a few months by the bodies of the travelers is the proof that only duration is natural, and this duration is quantified by the experiencing bodies quite differently according to the circumstances: speed, distance, length, where in space, etc. The dictatorship of time in scientific thinking is here questioned if not falsified. Maybe we should start thinking of a different theory.

That leads me to the last remark I will do in this short review, keeping a lot more stuff for a longer critical study of the book. The hypothesis that one book (of course printed, hence containing the printed version of some data. Note this printed version of the data concerned is not the data itself: the description of the life cycle of a butterfly in such a book is in no way the life cycle of this butterfly, just a printed linguistic version of it) being dropped into a black hole will lead to the destruction of the book, and Kaku adds, and the data contained in the book. That’s primitive thinking. Of course, the book contains some data, but it is only a linguistic – or pictorial – image of the real data in nature, or even the real data of some human theory that is mental and abstract. Obviously, this image will be destroyed, but destroying an image of anything does not destroy at all this anything. Even if it is only the linguistic formalization of some abstract conceptual discourse, philosophy for example, as long as other copies of the book, or the remembered version of this discourse is alive in the memory of at least one person, the data concerned cannot be destroyed. The final solution of Hitler was not burning the Old Testament of the Bible or even the Thora, because it would have destroyed absolutely nothing Jewish. Hitler knew that the destruction of a religion has to be performed by the destruction and annihilation of the people concerned by this religion, hence here the Jews. So, the book thrown or dropped into a black hole will not lead to the destruction of anything else than the book itself and in no way the data the book reflects as only an image of the natural reality or human reality or human thought it reflects, and all these natural, human, or human thought realities will survive beyond the destruction of the book because the book is in no way the real thing. It is true the massive destruction by the Spaniards of the manuscript codices of the Mayas has destroyed a lot of their culture, and yet memory has been able to keep a lot over centuries, even if at times warped by the translation into Spanish, or the transliteration into the Latin alphabet, thus losing all the rich iconographic dimension of the old glyphic writing system.

And nevertheless, we are on the threshold of a phenomenal transformation of humanity and the planet we live on. This transformation will only be controlled and mastered if we adapt all our science and technology to the objective of enabling the planet to go on living its own way and not our way because if we go against it, you can be sure it will naturally react to protect its own life by adapting to the circumstances and adopting the procedures necessary to do this. The earth is a living being even if it is not conscious of its life and the parameters that are at work in its architecture. If you do not take care of a cathedral, it will eventually collapse because the stone of it will go on evolving in “time” meaning the cathedral’s duration will imply some evolution of the materials it is built with. And even an accidental spark might speed up the process by burning the cathedral down to the ground. The spark had no intention to burn the cathedral down, but it carried in itself the possibility to do so if the circumstances around it are right. They were right in Paris when Notre Dame was severely burned down.

That human and humane dimension is totally absent from this book which is as cold as a block of ice. This is science without conscience and that leads to a blind vision of the stakes we are confronted to, and no solution is proposed, suggested, or imagined.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

[Marta · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book does what it says on the tin: it describes the history and current state of research for the Holy Grail of Physics: The Theory of Everything. This attempts to unify the two fundamental theories: Einstein’s general relativity, which describes gravity and the motion of the stars and objects in the universe; and quantum theory, which describes our world at the atomic level. Both are successful in their area - and are irreconcilable with each other. Many theoretical physicists worked on this problem, including Enstein, Stephen Hawking, and the author, Michio Kaku.

Kaku starts with a history of major breakthroughs, each discovering a fundamental force of physics: Newton - gravity and mechanics; Faraday and Maxwell - electromagnetics; Einstein - relativity of space and time; Bohr, Schrodinger, et. al: quantum theory; the discovery of weak and strong nuclear forces. Quantum theory and general relativity were both proved experimentally but were irreconcilable, leading to the greatest scientific argument between Einstein and Bohr.

This historical overview is rather sketchy and is covered by Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality in much greater detail, a book I greatly enjoyed and found instructional. Kaku spends 58% of the book on this (by my audio time counter). And this is where he starts talking about unification.

It turned out that quantum theory proved the more pliable in terms of encompassing other theories. Many physicists tinkered with it and successfully integrated electromagnetics and the weak and strong nuclear forces into it - albeit in unwieldy ways, using mathematical trickery both tedious, long, and full of added constants whose basis no one understood. This cobbled-together solution became known as the Standard Model, and it had the great advantage of predicting phenomena yet undiscovered that later proved correct - such as the elusive Higgs boson, which is like the Kardashians - very famous but no one understands why. The Standard Model integrates all forces - except for gravity. When you try to add gravity to it, the model blows up - even the invention of the graviton (gravity represented as particle) doesn’t help. It is also very ugly, making most physicists suspect that there is a more elegant solution.

The current favorite candidate is string theory. Kaku does not provide an explanation other than we should imagine strings where particles are represented as vibrations - in ten dimensions. Or eleven, take your pick. I assume that giving more info would be impossible to lay people like me. But I would have liked to have at least some explanation on why this theory can explain everything.

Kaku loves string theory because it is beautiful: there is a symmetry to it, meaning, components can be rearranged and the result will be the same. String theorists even assert that beauty is a fundamental quality of a good theory: in this they are supported by their predecessors, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and Paul Dirac, who elegantly simplified Schrodinger’s equations in quantum theory. String theory can encompass all other theories, including gravity.

There are a lot of objections to this theory. It is still incomplete: there are five theories using ten dimensions, and a theory unifying all in eleven dimensions. Now, you may ask, how on earth do I even imagine 11 dimensions? If you are like me, you move through space in three dimensions, and you may consider time as fourth. So where did the other dimensions go? Fear not, our string theorists posit that those dimensions have collapsed so we don’t notice them. Hmm, ok, we don’t notice them, then how do we prove this theory? Oh yeah - we can’t. I would consider that a deal breaker, but Kaku is optimistic that with some bigger, better particle accelerators we may have a break - I am certain we will break the budget, at least.

But let’s say our theory is valid, for thought experiment’s sake. We still have to contend with the fact that this Theory of Everything has an infinite number of solutions to its beautiful formulas: in other words, it really does explain everything, including multiple universes, dark matter and dark energy, black holes, wormholes, what happened before the big bang (which perhaps was just the loudest bang among many quiet popping sounds), and the kitchen sink. In fact it provides so many solutions that we end up scratching our heads why THIS particular solution we live in is the one that resulted. In other words, the theory has no predictive capability whatsoever.

But it may explain God (!?). In a rather odd metaphysical turn, Kaku throws in a chapter about the meaning of Life, Universe and Everything, which we all know is 42, but he means God. This vexation about the design of the universe and the existence of God seems to affect many physicists devoted to the study of the universe: Einstein wrote about God, so did Stephen Hawking; both late in their lives; so I suspect Kaku is getting to the age of thinking about the meaning of all. I find it ironic that all the mentioned declare themselves either atheist or agnostic, yet talk about the ultimate meaning as God; when they admire the beauty of the universe, they use the terminology of the spiritual realm. I personally think that science and religion should not mix: the existence or non-existence of God is unprovable via scientific means, and thus not a scientific question, but a spiritual one. Scientists should not meddle with religion and theology should not try to explain its teachings using scientific arguments, because they both fail. Why they both try to do just that is beyond my understanding.

Overall, this book is rather short to explain anything meaningfully. The current favorite theory, string theory, seems to me like a MacGuffin that magically plugs all the holes but on closer examination it is just CGI. I personally do not find a solution requiring 11 dimensions elegant or beautiful: E=mc² is beautiful. On the whole, this book indeed describes the Quest - but it is still very much ongoing.

P.S. I wondered if Wikipedia can give more info on string theory than Kaku in a form that I can understand. It can. Why he could not include this in the text, I have no idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introdu...

[Rama Rao · Rating 4 out of 5]

An ultimate theory that explains the cosmos

Is there such a thing as the God Equation? Physicists rarely speak of consciousness in working physics theories. They don’t even consider God as a part of physical laws that operate independently on matter and energy in spacetime. In fact, no one believes that a single tidy equation codifies the operations of the cosmos. General relativity explains physics at larger cosmic scale. It predicts things like the bending of spacetime by cosmic bodies, but quantum theory works at the sub-atomic scale. The four fundamental forces of nature like gravity, electromagnetism, the “weak force” responsible for radioactive decay of some nuclei, and the “strong force” binding the atomic nucleus together are responsible for all physical forces in nature. The standard model of physics that emerges from these developments results in a zoo of subatomic particles. But the quest to unify all four fundamental forces has stalled due to the confounding features of gravity. It is easy to understand gravity in classical and relativistic physics, but at quantum scales, it is difficult to comprehend.

When we look at the universe today, we see the four forces working independently of from each another. Gravity, light, and the nuclear forces, at first glance, seem to have nothing in common. But as you go back in time, these forces begin to converge resulting in one super-force at the instant of the Big Bang. At this moment, the two theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity collapse into one working theory. At Big Bang, with one super-force and one physical law, the matter obeyed a primary symmetry, which could rotate all particles into one another. The equation that governed one super-force may be called the God equation. But we cannot produce one elegant formula that accounts for the birth of the cosmos. Physicists frequently use consciousness to interpret quantum reality, but it is never found in physics equations, and they shy away to include that in the physical reality we experience in everyday life. Consciousness seems to pervade spacetime on which matter-energy are embedded. The spacetime and matter-energy collapses into the Pure Consciousness, this is called “Brahman” which forms the core of the teachings Vedanta Philosophy of Hinduism. The reality we experience is interpreted as illusion called “Maya.”

After the Big Bang, as the universe expanded, then it began to cool and the various forces and symmetries began to break into pieces, leaving the fragmented weak and strong force symmetries of the Standard Model of today. But to understand the physics we need a mechanism that can precisely break original primary symmetry. In addition, we must address how did the laws of physics evolve, and what is the nature of quantum vacuum where particles and anti-particles come into existence momentarily out of nothing, and then annihilate instantly.

The author discusses the basic framework of physics and string theory in a readable manner but fails to explain why he used this title for his book. I can’t help but think that this a good marketing strategy. This title enabled this book to be listed in the New York Times Best Sellers page.

[Nilesh Jasani · Rating 1 out of 5]

The God Equation is too short and too vast to be of use to almost any reader type.

The book offers almost nothing new for any reader who has gone through even a small number of popular books on twentieth-century physics. The wiki- (if not tweet-) length descriptions of monumental discoveries from Newton to Wheeler via Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, and others are without any new lights compared to their most common versions available everywhere. The author makes no attempts at coming up with new ways of looking at the past discoveries to cement the concepts better in the minds of the well-read.

For the completely uninitiated, the book is likely to prove too monotonous. The author spends nearly the same amount of time explaining Newtonian or Maxwell discoveries as going through the entire quantum revolution. It is almost as if the more complex the concepts get, the shorter their coverage is in the book. Strangely, the string theory explanations - supposedly the book's highlight - appear only in the last quarter of the book and more as mentions than as any detailed discourse.

[Nitesh · Rating 1 out of 5]

Putting 'god' on a scientific work is totally misleading.
I don't know why Science Popularizer use 'god' i.e 'Higgs Particle as God Particle', 'Spirit Particle', now 'God Equations'. Keep science as science and god as God. It's meaningless to mix together if don't know the bridge between them or fill the gap between them. Currently we don't know much. Now talk to God. If god is exist then why we need to search for meaning of our existence. Why we need to spend billions of dollars on building Big Machine such LHC, Hubble, Mars Rover etc. Like 'only truth is align with truth' , only science is align with science. We cannot prove god exit or its not. Science is based on testable data while God is purely product of belief. Truth is truth no matter who are you,what you believe, what you know or what you experience.

[hayatem · Rating 5 out of 5]

عندما اكتشف نيوتن قانون الجاذبية ، وحد القواعد التي تحكم السماوات والأرض. منذ ذلك الحين، وضع الفيزيائيون قوى جديدة في نظريات أعظم من أي وقت مضى. لكن ربما يكون التحدي النهائي هو تحقيق توليفة هائلة من النظريتين المتبقيتين - النسبية ونظرية الكم. سيكون هذا بمثابة تتويج لإنجاز العلم، وهو اندماج عميق لجميع قوى الطبيعة في معادلة واحدة رائعة لفتح أعمق الألغاز في العلم: ماذا حدث قبل الانفجار العظيم؟ ما الذي يقع على الجانب الآخر من الثقب الأسود؟ هل هناك أكوان وأبعاد أخرى؟ هل السفر عبر الزمن ممكن؟ لماذا نحن هنا؟

لقد كرس أينشتاين حياته للبحث عن نظرية ثورية واحدة من شأنها أن تربط كل القوى في الكون معًا ، ولكنه لم يعثر عليها أبدًا. كما قام بعض أعظم العقول في الفيزياء بالبحث كذلك، من ستيفن هوكينج إلى براين جرين. و لم ينجح أي منها حتى الآن.

يرى ميتشيو كاكاو أن نظرية المجال الموحد يجب أن تفي بثلاثة معايير:
-يجب أن تتضمن كل نظرية النسبية العامة لأينشتاين.
-بجب أن تشتمل على النموذج القياسي للجسيمات دون الذرية.
-أن تسفر عن نتائج محدودة.

كتاب يبحر من خلاله كاكاو في مختلف النظريات الفيزيائية- من المهد حتى آخر التطورات التي لحقت بهذا المجال من الناحية العلمية والفلسفية، سعى من خلال هذه الرحلة لتقديم فهم لتصوره عن (نظرية الإله ) أو نظرية كل شيء التي يسعى من خلالها العلماء لفهم الكون والحياة وتقديم تصور واضح لها وللإنسانية. " البحث عن المعنى في الكون، أو ماذا تقول نظرية كل شيء عن المعنى في الكون."
،….كما قال عالم الأحياء العظيم توماس ه. هكسلي في عام 1863 " إن جميع الأسئلة المتعلقة بالبشرية، والمشكلة التي تكمن وراء كل الأسئلة الأخرى الأكثر إثارة للاهتمام في أي منها، هي مسألة تحديد مكان الإنسان في الطبيعة وعلاقته بالكون." ص(274).

كما يشرح كاكاو خلاف العلماء حول هذه المسألة الحيوية، ووجهات نظرهم المختلفة عنها، وعن طبيعة فهمهم أو فهم الإنسان لطبيعة هذا الكون بما يحمله من معاني متراكبة الدلالات، متواترة الإحالات.
رائع !!

[Said AlMaskery · Rating 4 out of 5]

ما هي المعادلة التي تربط كل قوانين الفيزياء معا؟ وهل هي موجودة في الأساس؟ لماذا عيي العلماء من اكتشافها الى الآن؟
يأخذنا الكاتب في رحلة تاريخية تتناول الاكتشافات الكبيرة في عالم الفيزياء وكيف اكتشف العالم ارتباط الواحد منها بالآخر.
كتاب شيق ويسهل فهم هذه القوانين عندما ترى ارتباطها بالكون والإنسان.

[Ali Di · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a highly disappointing book that fails to deliver on its promises. The book is marketed as a comprehensive exploration of the theory of everything in physics, but instead provides a lackluster history of physics with little new information. The use of the word "god" in a scientific context is misleading and mixes science with religion without providing any meaningful bridge between the two.

The book offering nothing new to those who have read even a few popular books on physics. The explanations are too short, especially for the complex concepts in quantum physics and string theory, which are supposedly the highlight of the book.

The technical errors in the book are numerous and cover a wide range of established branches of physics, including classical electrodynamics, special and general relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and quantum field theory. The author also makes invalid claims about chemistry and biology, which further undermines the credibility of the book.

String theory is viewed as a form of pseudoscience or neo-religion with its own set of beliefs and followers, rather than a recognized branch of physics. The author's representation of string theory is biased, inaccurate, and riddled with technical mistakes. Despite being discredited and replaced by quantum chromodynamics in scientific experimentation, the author neglects to acknowledge this and instead alters the history of string theory to suit their personal bias.

The author's misconceptions, technical errors, and distorted view of string theory make it one of the worst books on physics available. Readers looking for a thoughtful and well-researched exploration of the subject should look elsewhere.

[S.A Reidman · Rating 4 out of 5]

RTC
What a ride. Between reading this and the rest of my Scifi schedule, I went on a deep dive on the Beyond Ideas Channel and watched Michio Kaku talk turkey about the 10th dimension. As one does when they have a weird interest in the Kardashev Scale and try to find work leaning in that direction.

This book has been such an enriching learning experience for the science nerd in me. I mean yeah I got a bit lazy with most theory after I got my degree and bolted straight into the workforce but it's so good to stretch the muscles hidden in the skull you know.

[Sreena · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think the rest of the book is quite dull, with the exception of the section on string theory.

[Walter Gallo · Rating 5 out of 5]

⭑ ⭑ ⭑ ⭑ ✫ (4,5 estrellas)

La obra de divulgación científica de Michio Kaku es un repaso de los avances de la física a través de los tiempos hasta llegar a la actual y novedosa teoría de cuerdas y membranas, lo cual lo hace en sus primeros 6 capítulos.
En esta parte no aprendí nada nuevo a lo que venía leyendo de Stephen Hawking, con algún que otro agregado. Son capítulos interesantes para quien nunca incursionó en este tipo de libros.

Sin embargo, su capítulo final y más personal, el 7º “la búsqueda del sentido del universo” es tal vez el que más me gustó por sus conclusiones personales, que las encontré muy parecidas a lo que opino del tema del sentido de todo. Es tal vez su capítulo más sincero y filosófico.

Súper recomendable para aquellos que nos gustan estos temas de astrofísica sin tener una formación en esta materia.

[Richard Marney · Rating 2 out of 5]

A funny little book.

If you can read it and understand the content, then you don’t really need to read the book. Conversely, if you can’t follow the references to / summary of the theories of, Newton, Einstein, Planck, et.al., and the progression through relativity to quantum mechanics to string theory, then reading the book by itself is futile.

The author is brilliant and articulate. This book is not an essential addition to your bookshelf, save for being trendy however. Save your library budget for his other more substantive works.

😟

[Pablo Blanco · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 que redondeo a 3. En este libro, en teoría, se busca introducir la teoría de cuerdas como una teoría del todo, y mostrar cómo ésta, unificando gravedad y cuántica, nos permitiría entender y describir todo lo que nos rodea.

Empieza con un repaso de toda la historia de la física, básicamente, pasando por Newton, Maxwell, y Einstein, de manera poco clara, en mi opinión, y tirando de ejemplos archiconocidos (la relatividad con una membrana elástica y una bala de cañón, por ejemplo). Aun así, hay cosas buenas, como la introducción de las ecuaciones de Maxwell, o algunas explicaciones sobre relatividad. Todo esto ocupa

A continuación se introduce la cuántica, Schrodinger, Dirac, se habla hasta de renormalización y de QED. Esta parte me ha gustado más, aunque no deja de ser introducción. Y hasta aquí llevamos ya 100 páginas.

Después se habla de agujeros negros, cosmología. Otra vez hay momentos buenos, pero hay muchos ejemplos manidos (viajes en el tiempo, agujeros de gusano...).

Finalmente, en el penúltimo capítulo, se introduce la teoría de cuerdas. Es algo complicado, y no se mete demasiado, lo cual es comprensible, pero se puede pensar que quizá podría haber profundizado más si no hubiera estado 120 páginas de repaso de toda la física. De todas formas, hay detalles interesantes, como que cuente de dónde salen las famosas 11 dimensiones de manera sencilla.

Finalmente, el último capítulo contiene reflexiones sobre Dios, y sobre qué supondría encontrar una teoría del todo. Es un capítulo más personal, pero tiene cosas curiosas (la teoría del todo unifica el cristianismo con el budismo. Obvio, ¿no?).

Una aspecto destacable del libro es como hace continuas alusiones a la simetría. La usa de manera un tanto extraña (parafraseando, un ejemplo que usa de simetría es cambiar unas partículas por otras. Sí, pero no), que no sé si me termina de convencer. En el fondo es correcto (lo cual es algo refrescante), pero expresa las simetrías de manera un poco burda.

En resumen, es un libro con una introducción muy larga y, aunque con destellos interesantes bastante manida. Los dos capítulos finales son muy interesantes, y lo que esperaba del libro, pero se hacen esperar, quizá demasiado.

[em · Rating 4 out of 5]

Books that attempt to distill physics down to my cognitive level will forever be a staple of my reading life. This pleasant little volume by Michio Kaku presents a general overview of the history of physics, from Newton's laws, Maxwell's Equations, Einstein's General Relativity, quantum mechanics, and the various attempts to come up with a "God Equation" that can *string* them all together. (Hahah, get it? I'm so proud of myself for this pun)

I will never cease to be amazed by how anyone's brain can comprehend, let alone *come up with* this stuff. Nothing like reading a book that tries to explain string theory and quantum gravity to humble yourself. But in any case, this book was interesting, gave me a TON of science fiction story ideas, and I learned some facts, like:

- EDGAR ALLAN POE is the one who came up with a solution to Olber's paradox (why the sky is dark at night -- because the universe started at some point)

- string theory, or, it's weird counterpart/synonym/unifyer of M theory says that there are 11 dimensions, all of which, besides the 4 we see, might just be too small for atoms to be in

- string theory doesn't tell us the exact conditions of our universe's formation. so it can predict multiple universes. LANDSCAPE PROBLEM -> why is our particular universe formed how it is, which seems to support life super conveniently? Could it be that some entity designed it this way? Or could it be that there are multiple universes and we're just in one?

As a sidenote, I believe in multiverse theory. I think it makes more sense than someone fine tuning our universe specifically. It seems absolutely plausible to me that we are only one of many universes. Or maybe I simply think that such a configuration sounds more interesting than only this lousy universe

[Nas Mhd · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب "معادلة الإله: البحث عن نظرية الكل شيء The God Equation: The quest for a theory of everything"

الكاتب هو مبسط العلوم و الباحث الفيزيائي الشهير في الاوساط الاعلامية "ميتشيو كاكو Michio Kaku" وهو استاذ باحث في الفيزياء النظرية في جامعة نيويورك متخصص في نظرية الأوتار الفائقة مقدم عدة برامج و له عدة كتب جيدة و هو من أصول يابانية.

يمكن تصنيف الكتاب على أنه تأريخ للفيزياء و شرح مبسط لكل مفاهيمها تقريبا بدون معادلات رياضية موجه للعوام ، أسلوب الكتابة بسيط و سلس و مشوق يخوض في معضلة و ملحمة العلوم و الفيزياء، (من قرأ كتب كاكو السابقة يلاحظ تكرار و اعادة صياغة و تحديث طفيف ، لكن هذه المرة طرح رأيه في موضوع الدين بكل صراحة) ...

الكتاب لا أعده من أفضل ما قرأت بل هو "تحت ما توقعت" و فيه أخطاء تاريخية لست أعلم هل متعمدة ام لا سأذكرها في الآخر مع اني لا أقلل من قيمة الكاتب و مكانته لأني من محبيه.

ينقسم الكتاب لفصول متصلة حيث يبدأ الكاتب في الفصل الأول Unification: the ancient dream بطرح موضوع الكتاب و هي محاولة الفيزيائيين الحصول على نظرية واحدة تسمى بنظرية الكل شيء، و هي معادلة واحدة سماها "معادلة الإله" تجمع كل القوى الأربعة التي تحكم الكون و تتوحد فيها قوانين عالم التحت ذري متناهي الصغر (ميكانيك الكم) و قوانين العالم الكوني متناهي الكبر (النسبية العامة و الخاصة)، في هذا الفصل يروي الكاتب محاولات الفيزيائيين القدماء تقديم تفسير للعالم الفيزيائي بدءا بالاغريق الى كيبلر و كوبرنيكوس ثم مباشرة الى نيوتن! (ويقول ان العالم الغربي غط في ظلام فكري لمدة ألف سنة، سأعود لهذا الخطأ لاحقا).
ينتهي الفصل بسرد قصة الكهرباء بدءا بقوانين فراداي و معادلات ماكسويل و قوانين هرتز لغاية ظهور حرب التيارات بين نيكولا تسلا و توماس اديسون و التي انتهت بانتصار التيار المتناوب الذي روجه تيسلا لأنه فهم جيدا معادلات ماكسويل و فلسفتها عكس اديسون الذي آمن بالتيار المستمر... ثم يحكي قصة الراديو و الاتصالات اللاسلكية من هرتز و ماركوني ....

الفصل الثاني Einstein's quest for unification و هو الذي اعجبني اكثر يدور حول معضلة انشتاين التي لم يكملها وهي ايجاد معادلة الكل شيء و يبدأ في سرد حياة انشتاين بنفس اسلوب كتابه "كون انشتاين Einstein's Cosmos" مع شرح مستفيض و جيد جدا لنظريات النسبية و مساهمات انشتاين في ميكانيك الكم و تطبيقات هذه النظرية في الاجهزة التي ننعم بها يوميا كالهواتف و الحواسيب و غيرها....

الفصل الثالث The rise of Quantum خصص لسرد تاريخ ظهور نظرية الكم على يد ماكس بلانك سنة 1900 و كيف تمكن من فتح باب جديد كليا في عالم الفيزياء الذي ظن فيزياىيون قبله امثال استاذه كيرشووف و اللورد كالفن أنه أغلق، الفصل هذا وحده كتاب و فيه تسلسل تاريخي رائع كما يتطرق الكاتب لجانب مهم من الشخصيات التي ساهمت في بناء نظرية الكم و هو الجانب النفسي مثلا بلانك كان انطوائي و قد فقد ابنه الذي اعدمه هتلر لانه تورط في محاولة اغتياله... ثم يروي كيف عارض انشتاين مفاهيم ميكانيك الكم و كيف اثبت اقرانه خطأه في تقدير قدرات هذا العلم و ينتهي بسرد مساهمات هؤلاء في صنع القنبلة الذرية الامريكية في مشروع منهاتن و اعتراض انشتاين و غيره ثم تطرق الى انجازات رتشارد فاينمان و ادوارد ويتن و ليزا راندل و غيرهم...

الفصل الرابع Theory of almost everything يشرح فيه نظرية الاوتار الفائقة التي سماها اول خطوة للوصول لنظرية الكل شيء و شرحها بالتفصيل بكا جوانبها الشيقة و حكى قصة ادوارد ويتن الذي كتبت عليه سابقا هنا 👇
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?stor...
تطرق ايضا الى المصادمات العملاقة و الاجسام الدقيقة و المسرعات و كذلك المفاعلات النووية و قصة اكتشاف كل جسيم دقيق باختصار.

الفصل الخامس The dark universe يشرح فيه تكوين الكون المرئي و الثقوب السوداء و كل ما يأتي معها من نظريات و مفاهيم و نظرية الأكوان المتعددة مع التركيز على انجازات ستيفن هاوكينغ في التنظير للثقوب السوداء .. أيضا وضع اهم المعضلات التي ترافق هذه المفاهيم لكي تتحد مع نظرية الكم.

الفصل السادس The rise of String Theory تطرق كاكو فيه مرة اخرى لنظرية الاوتار الفائقة مع توضيح مفاهيم الأبعاد العلوية الاحدى عشر و مفهوم التناظر الفائق super symmetry و مفهوم التناظر بصغة عامة و هو الصفة التي تميز جمال الكون و أناقة الرياضيات. في الفصل الأول ايضا شرح مفهوم التناظر في فيزياء نيوتن و الكهرباء....

الفصل الأخير Finding meaning in the universe وهو الفصل الذي يطرح غيه الكاتب بشكل غير مباشر الأسئلة الفلسفية الثلاثة: "من اين جىنا؟ و اين نحن ذاهبون ؟ و لماذا نحن هنا ؟و ما معنى هذا كله... و قد تجنب طرح المفهوم الديني وتحدث باحتشام على الدين البوذي الذي لا يؤمن يوجود إله بل روح كونية متجددة Nirvana والدين المسيحي الذي يؤمن بوجود إله خالق الكون، حيث ترعرع بينهما في عائلته، ثم يقول بأنه غير مؤمن و غير ملحد بل "لاأدروي Agnostic" و يقول أن هناك تناظر بين العالم الفيزيائي (العلم) و العالم الميتافيزيقي (الدين) حيث كل منهما يجيب على جزء من الأسئلة الانسانية و لا يلغي احدهما الآخر بالضرورة ...

ما لم يعجبني في الكتاب هو الخطأ التاريخي الفادح حينما قال ان العلم توقف بعيد سقوط الحضارة الرومانية في القرن الرابع الميلادي و لم يستيقظ الا بعد ألف سنة في عصر النهضة و هو بهذا اختزل احد اعظم الحضارات في التاريخ الانساني و التي أسست للعلوم الحديثة التي يتحدث عنها و هي الحضارة الاسلامية التي شهدت ازدهار الطب و الفلك و الرياضيات و الهندسة و الميكانيك و الفلسفة و هي من اوجدت المنهاج العلمي الحديث تحت يد ابن الهيثم. و هذا ما سأراسله بشأنه قريبا.

الكتاب يستحق القراءة لكنه لا يعتبر مرجع وحيد بل قراءة اضافية و ما اوصي به دائما هو القراءة لعدة مصادر و مع الوقت تكتسب ملكة النقد و تمييز الاخطاء و المغالطات و التحيزات التي يقع فيها الكتاب.

الكتاب نشر مؤخرا و هو غير متوفر الكترونيا مجانا.
قراءة ممتعة...

م.ن

[Joe Biscoe IV · Rating 1 out of 5]

I wish I could give this a zero star rating...haha. this is a fairy tale for grown ups.

Although it is a simple read, that is that even someone without a physics degree can understand it. It is utterly ridiculous to postulate that by making an equation work on paper that somehow it makes it reality. Kaku even admits that the Standard Model only works because the infinite possibilities are made to cancel out by much effort in the equations for the symmetry between the three forces involved (electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear). When speaking about the symmetry of the universe, specifically of the strength of the strong nuclear force and the weakness of the weak nuclear force he relegates that astronomical symmetry to generations that have yet to appear figuring out the final string theory equation. He gets around the symmetry of the universe by saying people who aren't born yet will figure it out. Reminds me of the Dawkins Debacle known as the god delusion. Where Dawkins says he doesn't believe in God because of the anthropic principle. And that the conditions of the Big Bang will be found out by future generations.

How is this scientific at all? How is it scientific to assume that everything can be fit into a particle (quantum theory) and run through the quantum realm? Notice that if you can't have something in the quantum realm (make it a particle...the higgs boson, the quark, the gluon, and now the inflaton....) then you can't use mathematics because mathematics can only be applied to quantities that is quantities of particles....!!!!!! That's a pretty important distinction. He then tries to close the book making the argument for his ridiculous position of agnosticism. This is what happens when jokers make a god out of their brain and refuse to believe the truth of the King James Bible...they (Kaku included) will have to answer to God one day as to why they refused to believe 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ' Gen 1:1.

[Sara · Rating 3 out of 5]

I always like reading Kaku's books because he is a great writer.

This book is in the same vein as "A Brief History of Time": a popular science guide to difficult physics concepts related to the concepts and conundrums in quantum and Newtonian physics. Don't get me wrong... it is a good book and mostly accessible (some parts I didn't quite get with all of the subatomic particles). It's just... been done several times. Kaku's appeal is that he is a 'futurist' and I really love his books on future technologies and theories. It gives me hope for a bright and exciting future. This book is a retread that has been covered many times.

Kaku delves into ideas like alternative universes, string theory, and a brief history of physics and pioneers in the field and their discoveries. Being Kaku, he does keep it interesting for most of the book. But, if you're trying a new bents on an old theme, perhaps it would have actually been preferable for him to give a few more anecdotes related the different scientists. Mostly he writes well about the discoveries and the narrative flows well. A few ideas like all of the variables getting 'canceled' is a little hard to see and visualize without concrete examples.

It's a short book and a good primer if you want to be a little more knowledge about the 'theory of everything' and physics in general- its concepts and theoretical issues that come from it. I'm sure it's more accessible than most books on the topic, but given that it is Kaku and that his books usually blow my mind... he didn't really this time. Still love the author and still a decent book.