Easily understood at a kind of metaphorical level, maybe, but really freaking hard to understand on a technical level. I think with a lot of these popular science books, the key is picking the right metaphors.
Briane Greene does cover the same subject matter in his books as Stephen Hawking, as well as a whole lot more. In fact in The Elegant Universe (for example: Part 4, section 13) he writes about Hawking. I just think he does Hawking better than Hawking.
I agree that in many of the more esoteric aspects of physics, the best communicator is the one who can produce the best metaphors and similes. For me, this where Brian Greene scores. I agree that strings are fairly easily ‘metaphored’, but an awful lot of the rest of what he writes about isn’t.
And are. Have you actually read Brian Greene’s books?
Yeah, I’ve read The Elegant Universe and its sequel, The Fabric of the Cosmos. Kind of implied by me mentioning Yang-Mills theory, I’d have thought. Did you read all my post?
If you are going to argue that he is wrong, it would be nice for you to provide an explanation yourself. I guess you could merely provide statistics if you used that to come to your conclusion. But I assume you think this is true because you understood it, and think it is simple enough that any reader should be able to explain it.
While zombie threads are permitted in GQ, since there is an active discussion of Stephen Hawking in this thread reviving this one is redundant.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator