Brian Greene

[magicbeatle]

I have Brian Greene's book 'The Elegant Universe' but find it a bit too heavy going. I have heard his other book 'The fabric of the universe' is easier to understand, and was written specifically for those who do not know much about physics. And that once you have read that, the other one will be easier to grasp. Is this true?

[Loosehead]

I havn't read "the fabric of the universe" but if it is claimed to be for the layman then I would imagine it should help. Also Hawking's "Illustrated, A brief History of Time helps". I have read "The elegant Universe", it's ideas are very challenging but rewarding.

[fo3nix]

The Elegant Universe does bog me down a bit (and i'm studying Theoretical Physics!). He's not the best writer ever, by any means. But his analogies are excellent.

Other great books: string theory: "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku.
general: "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose, or "Chaos" by James Gleick.

I think you'd find all of those interesting. Hyperspace is basiacally all about higher dimensions and string theory, but I find Kaku's style of writing to be far more suited for the average person. The book is a fair few years old though, so misses out on some of the stuff Greene includes. Still a brilliant book though, if you want to learn the very latest steps in physics it shouldn't be from a popular science book anyway.

[stevie21]

"if you want to learn the very latest steps in physics it shouldn't be from a popular science book anyway"
fo3nix, that's easy to say from someone studying physics at school/uni.
In physics, I'd be totally lost if I ventured further than a popular science book. Aside from the fact that academic texts are so often overly technical and inaccessible, they do assume a fair bit of prior knowledge that some of us don't have.

Also, they can be very boring to read due to the focus on facts and theories rather than being interesting and rewarding to read.

[fo3nix]

no, sorry, I don't mean it that way.

What I mean is that the _very_ latest developments (i.e. theories of the past month or two), are generally not covered in popular science books, and nor should they be, as they may be far from correct.

The very latest steps will always be in technical literature only. Everyone else finds out once the theory has some supporters, a year or two down the line.

My comment was simply due to Hyperspace not containing anything at all about more recent developments in string theory, such as M Theory. Greene's book does cover this, as it was written later.

But I totally agree on what you're saying, popular science books are great!