The Origin and Fate of the Universe - The Theory of Everything

The book is brilliant!!! Steven Hawking is brilliant. I must admit that I had to read each page VERY slowly and tried to digest it; then reading a lot more of it again. It is above me. I tried to follow his thinking; and although the book was said to be written for the "common"man; it is definitely not an easy read. However, I appreciate the intelligent mind that wrote it and admire all the work done trying to figure out our universe. Even if I did not understand it completely, I loved reading it.

If you expect to find the Theory of Everything when you read this book, then you will not, but you will find out why we do not (Yet) have a Theory of Everything. Professor Hawking is a fine Scientist and a fine Writer - a rare combination.

I am really dessapointed with the service offering by the store. I placed my order on December 26, 2009. Although the estimated date was January 8, 2010 still I havent received the books. I thought the store is trustworthy but they are not. This will be my first and last order placement on the store.

Why? Because this book, as well as Universe in a Nutshell, and A Briefer History of Time, are nothing more than slightly modified versions of A Brief History of Time. Hawking provides nothing additional to what he's already published so don't waste your time & money.

Stephen Hawking has also written/cowritten other books such as A Brief History of Time,The Grand Design,The Dreams That Stuff Is Made Of: The Most Astounding Papers of Quantum Physics--and How They Shook the Scientific World,Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays,The Universe in a Nutshell, etc.

[NOTE: page numbers refer to the 176-page hardcover edition.]

He begins the first lecture of this 2002 book with the statement, “In this series of lectures I shall try to give an outline of what we think is the history of the universe from the big bang to black holes… in the seventh lecture I shall describe how we are trying to find a unified theory that will include quantum mechanics, gravity, and all the other interactions of physics. If we achieve this, we shall really understand the universe and our position in it.”

He concludes the first lecture, “There is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still believe that God created the universe at an instant of the big bang. He could even have created it at a later time in just such as to make it look as though there had been a big bang. But it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when He might have carried out his job.” (Pg. 15)

He acknowledges, “If we add up the masses of all the stars that we can see in our galaxy and other galaxies, the total is less than one-hundredth of the amount required to halt the expansion of the universe, even in the lowest estimate of the rate of expansion. But we know that our galaxy and other galaxies must contain a large amount of dark matter which we cannot see directly, but which we know must be there because of the influence of its gravitational attraction on the orbits of stars and gas in the galaxies… When we add up all this dark matter, we still get only about one-tenth of the amount required to halt the expansion. However, there might still be some other form of matter which we have not yet detected and which might still raise the average density of the universe up to the critical value needed to halt the expansion.” (Pg. 33-34)

He explains, “even if there were events before the big bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would break down at the big bang. Correspondingly, if we know only what has happened since the big bang, we could not determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang.” (Pg. 35-36)

In the fifth lecture, he presents some “Open Questions,” such as: “Third, why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion to just avoid recollapse? If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present state. On the other hand, if the expansion rate at one second had been larger by the same amount, the universe would have expanded so much that it would be effectively empty now.” (Pg. 104)

Perhaps surprisingly, he concludes this section with the statement, “In the hot big bang model … there was not enough time in the early universe for heat to have flowed from one region to another. This means that different regions of the universe would have had to have started out with exactly the same temperature in order to account for the fact that the microwave background has the same temperature in every direction we look. Also, the initial rate of expansion would have had to be chosen very precisely for the universe not to have recollapsed before now. This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except, as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” (Pg. 106-107)

He continues, “So even the inflationary model does not tell us why the initial configuration was such as to produce what we observe. Must we turn to the anthropic principle for an explanation? Was it all just a lucky chance? That would seem a counsel of despair, a negation of all our hopes of understanding the underlying order of the universe.” (Pg. 115)

He ends the fifth lecture with the statement, “The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe… most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws. He does not seem to intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started. It would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning that was a singularity, one could suppose that it was created by an outside agency. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would be neither created nor destroyed. It would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?” (Pg. 126)

In the last lecture, he asks [in connection with string theory’s concept of “extra space-time dimensions”], “Why don’t we notice all these extra dimensions if they are really there? Why do we see only three space and one time dimension? The suggestion is that the other dimensions are curved up into a space of very small size… This is so small that we just don’t notice it.” (Pg. 156) He adds, “It seems clear that life, at least as we know it, can exist only in regions of space-time in which three space and one time dimension are not curled up small. This would mean that one could appeal to the anthropic principle, provided one could show that string theory does at least allow there to be such regions of the universe… But there would be no intelligent beings in such regions to observe the different number of effective dimensions.” (Pg. 159)

He predicts, “I think that there is a very good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century---always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first.” (Pg. 163) He concludes on the note, “However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion of why the universe exists. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For then we would know the mind of God.” (Pg. 166-167)

Hawking has since, of course, come out strongly for an atheist conception of the universe. But this relatively early book will be of great interest to a wide variety of readers interested in cosmology, as well as the development of Hawking’s thought.

Stephen Hawking has also written/cowritten other books such as A Brief History of Time,The Grand Design,The Dreams That Stuff Is Made Of: The Most Astounding Papers of Quantum Physics--and How They Shook the Scientific World,Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays,The Universe in a Nutshell, etc.

[NOTE: page numbers refer to the 176-page hardcover edition.]

He begins the first lecture of this 2002 book with the statement, “In this series of lectures I shall try to give an outline of what we think is the history of the universe from the big bang to black holes… in the seventh lecture I shall describe how we are trying to find a unified theory that will include quantum mechanics, gravity, and all the other interactions of physics. If we achieve this, we shall really understand the universe and our position in it.”

He concludes the first lecture, “There is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still believe that God created the universe at an instant of the big bang. He could even have created it at a later time in just such as to make it look as though there had been a big bang. But it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when He might have carried out his job.” (Pg. 15)

He acknowledges, “If we add up the masses of all the stars that we can see in our galaxy and other galaxies, the total is less than one-hundredth of the amount required to halt the expansion of the universe, even in the lowest estimate of the rate of expansion. But we know that our galaxy and other galaxies must contain a large amount of dark matter which we cannot see directly, but which we know must be there because of the influence of its gravitational attraction on the orbits of stars and gas in the galaxies… When we add up all this dark matter, we still get only about one-tenth of the amount required to halt the expansion. However, there might still be some other form of matter which we have not yet detected and which might still raise the average density of the universe up to the critical value needed to halt the expansion.” (Pg. 33-34)

He explains, “even if there were events before the big bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would break down at the big bang. Correspondingly, if we know only what has happened since the big bang, we could not determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang.” (Pg. 35-36)

In the fifth lecture, he presents some “Open Questions,” such as: “Third, why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion to just avoid recollapse? If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present state. On the other hand, if the expansion rate at one second had been larger by the same amount, the universe would have expanded so much that it would be effectively empty now.” (Pg. 104)

Perhaps surprisingly, he concludes this section with the statement, “In the hot big bang model … there was not enough time in the early universe for heat to have flowed from one region to another. This means that different regions of the universe would have had to have started out with exactly the same temperature in order to account for the fact that the microwave background has the same temperature in every direction we look. Also, the initial rate of expansion would have had to be chosen very precisely for the universe not to have recollapsed before now. This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except, as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” (Pg. 106-107)

He continues, “So even the inflationary model does not tell us why the initial configuration was such as to produce what we observe. Must we turn to the anthropic principle for an explanation? Was it all just a lucky chance? That would seem a counsel of despair, a negation of all our hopes of understanding the underlying order of the universe.” (Pg. 115)

He ends the fifth lecture with the statement, “The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe… most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws. He does not seem to intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started. It would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning that was a singularity, one could suppose that it was created by an outside agency. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would be neither created nor destroyed. It would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?” (Pg. 126)

In the last lecture, he asks [in connection with string theory’s concept of “extra space-time dimensions”], “Why don’t we notice all these extra dimensions if they are really there? Why do we see only three space and one time dimension? The suggestion is that the other dimensions are curved up into a space of very small size… This is so small that we just don’t notice it.” (Pg. 156) He adds, “It seems clear that life, at least as we know it, can exist only in regions of space-time in which three space and one time dimension are not curled up small. This would mean that one could appeal to the anthropic principle, provided one could show that string theory does at least allow there to be such regions of the universe… But there would be no intelligent beings in such regions to observe the different number of effective dimensions.” (Pg. 159)

He predicts, “I think that there is a very good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century---always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first.” (Pg. 163) He concludes on the note, “However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion of why the universe exists. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For then we would know the mind of God.” (Pg. 166-167)

Hawking has since, of course, come out strongly for an atheist conception of the universe. But this relatively early book will be of great interest to a wide variety of readers interested in cosmology, as well as the development of Hawking’s thought.

Stephen Hawking has also written/cowritten other books such as A Brief History of Time,The Grand Design,The Dreams That Stuff Is Made Of: The Most Astounding Papers of Quantum Physics--and How They Shook the Scientific World,Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays,The Universe in a Nutshell, etc.

[NOTE: page numbers refer to the 176-page hardcover edition.]

He begins the first lecture of this 2002 book with the statement, “In this series of lectures I shall try to give an outline of what we think is the history of the universe from the big bang to black holes… in the seventh lecture I shall describe how we are trying to find a unified theory that will include quantum mechanics, gravity, and all the other interactions of physics. If we achieve this, we shall really understand the universe and our position in it.”

He concludes the first lecture, “There is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still believe that God created the universe at an instant of the big bang. He could even have created it at a later time in just such as to make it look as though there had been a big bang. But it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when He might have carried out his job.” (Pg. 15)

He acknowledges, “If we add up the masses of all the stars that we can see in our galaxy and other galaxies, the total is less than one-hundredth of the amount required to halt the expansion of the universe, even in the lowest estimate of the rate of expansion. But we know that our galaxy and other galaxies must contain a large amount of dark matter which we cannot see directly, but which we know must be there because of the influence of its gravitational attraction on the orbits of stars and gas in the galaxies… When we add up all this dark matter, we still get only about one-tenth of the amount required to halt the expansion. However, there might still be some other form of matter which we have not yet detected and which might still raise the average density of the universe up to the critical value needed to halt the expansion.” (Pg. 33-34)

He explains, “even if there were events before the big bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would break down at the big bang. Correspondingly, if we know only what has happened since the big bang, we could not determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang.” (Pg. 35-36)

In the fifth lecture, he presents some “Open Questions,” such as: “Third, why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion to just avoid recollapse? If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present state. On the other hand, if the expansion rate at one second had been larger by the same amount, the universe would have expanded so much that it would be effectively empty now.” (Pg. 104)

Perhaps surprisingly, he concludes this section with the statement, “In the hot big bang model … there was not enough time in the early universe for heat to have flowed from one region to another. This means that different regions of the universe would have had to have started out with exactly the same temperature in order to account for the fact that the microwave background has the same temperature in every direction we look. Also, the initial rate of expansion would have had to be chosen very precisely for the universe not to have recollapsed before now. This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except, as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” (Pg. 106-107)

He continues, “So even the inflationary model does not tell us why the initial configuration was such as to produce what we observe. Must we turn to the anthropic principle for an explanation? Was it all just a lucky chance? That would seem a counsel of despair, a negation of all our hopes of understanding the underlying order of the universe.” (Pg. 115)

He ends the fifth lecture with the statement, “The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe… most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws. He does not seem to intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started. It would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning that was a singularity, one could suppose that it was created by an outside agency. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would be neither created nor destroyed. It would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?” (Pg. 126)

In the last lecture, he asks [in connection with string theory’s concept of “extra space-time dimensions”], “Why don’t we notice all these extra dimensions if they are really there? Why do we see only three space and one time dimension? The suggestion is that the other dimensions are curved up into a space of very small size… This is so small that we just don’t notice it.” (Pg. 156) He adds, “It seems clear that life, at least as we know it, can exist only in regions of space-time in which three space and one time dimension are not curled up small. This would mean that one could appeal to the anthropic principle, provided one could show that string theory does at least allow there to be such regions of the universe… But there would be no intelligent beings in such regions to observe the different number of effective dimensions.” (Pg. 159)

He predicts, “I think that there is a very good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century---always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first.” (Pg. 163) He concludes on the note, “However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion of why the universe exists. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For then we would know the mind of God.” (Pg. 166-167)

Hawking has since, of course, come out strongly for an atheist conception of the universe. But this relatively early book will be of great interest to a wide variety of readers interested in cosmology, as well as the development of Hawking’s thought.

Stephen Hawking has also written/cowritten other books such as A Brief History of Time,The Grand Design,The Dreams That Stuff Is Made Of: The Most Astounding Papers of Quantum Physics--and How They Shook the Scientific World,Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays,The Universe in a Nutshell, etc.

[NOTE: page numbers refer to the 176-page hardcover edition.]

He begins the first lecture of this 2002 book with the statement, “In this series of lectures I shall try to give an outline of what we think is the history of the universe from the big bang to black holes… in the seventh lecture I shall describe how we are trying to find a unified theory that will include quantum mechanics, gravity, and all the other interactions of physics. If we achieve this, we shall really understand the universe and our position in it.”

He concludes the first lecture, “There is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still believe that God created the universe at an instant of the big bang. He could even have created it at a later time in just such as to make it look as though there had been a big bang. But it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when He might have carried out his job.” (Pg. 15)

He acknowledges, “If we add up the masses of all the stars that we can see in our galaxy and other galaxies, the total is less than one-hundredth of the amount required to halt the expansion of the universe, even in the lowest estimate of the rate of expansion. But we know that our galaxy and other galaxies must contain a large amount of dark matter which we cannot see directly, but which we know must be there because of the influence of its gravitational attraction on the orbits of stars and gas in the galaxies… When we add up all this dark matter, we still get only about one-tenth of the amount required to halt the expansion. However, there might still be some other form of matter which we have not yet detected and which might still raise the average density of the universe up to the critical value needed to halt the expansion.” (Pg. 33-34)

He explains, “even if there were events before the big bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would break down at the big bang. Correspondingly, if we know only what has happened since the big bang, we could not determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang.” (Pg. 35-36)

In the fifth lecture, he presents some “Open Questions,” such as: “Third, why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion to just avoid recollapse? If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present state. On the other hand, if the expansion rate at one second had been larger by the same amount, the universe would have expanded so much that it would be effectively empty now.” (Pg. 104)

Perhaps surprisingly, he concludes this section with the statement, “In the hot big bang model … there was not enough time in the early universe for heat to have flowed from one region to another. This means that different regions of the universe would have had to have started out with exactly the same temperature in order to account for the fact that the microwave background has the same temperature in every direction we look. Also, the initial rate of expansion would have had to be chosen very precisely for the universe not to have recollapsed before now. This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except, as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” (Pg. 106-107)

He continues, “So even the inflationary model does not tell us why the initial configuration was such as to produce what we observe. Must we turn to the anthropic principle for an explanation? Was it all just a lucky chance? That would seem a counsel of despair, a negation of all our hopes of understanding the underlying order of the universe.” (Pg. 115)

He ends the fifth lecture with the statement, “The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe… most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws. He does not seem to intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started. It would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning that was a singularity, one could suppose that it was created by an outside agency. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would be neither created nor destroyed. It would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?” (Pg. 126)

In the last lecture, he asks [in connection with string theory’s concept of “extra space-time dimensions”], “Why don’t we notice all these extra dimensions if they are really there? Why do we see only three space and one time dimension? The suggestion is that the other dimensions are curved up into a space of very small size… This is so small that we just don’t notice it.” (Pg. 156) He adds, “It seems clear that life, at least as we know it, can exist only in regions of space-time in which three space and one time dimension are not curled up small. This would mean that one could appeal to the anthropic principle, provided one could show that string theory does at least allow there to be such regions of the universe… But there would be no intelligent beings in such regions to observe the different number of effective dimensions.” (Pg. 159)

He predicts, “I think that there is a very good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century---always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first.” (Pg. 163) He concludes on the note, “However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion of why the universe exists. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For then we would know the mind of God.” (Pg. 166-167)

Hawking has since, of course, come out strongly for an atheist conception of the universe. But this relatively early book will be of great interest to a wide variety of readers interested in cosmology, as well as the development of Hawking’s thought.

The below is a review of the unabridged CD audiobook.

On the positive side, this book provides a decent introduction to its topics (i.e., black holes, origin and fate of the universe, etc.) in its seven short chapters. In addition the material is well written and geared to the layman. The audiobook is also very well read by Michael York. This reviewer has listened to many audiobooks and can state, emphatically, that is easily in the upper few percent in terms of quality. The audiobook is never monotone or boring in terms of being read, despite the nature of the material (which could easily have become so with a reader who was not as good).

Unfortunately, the book has serious negatives. The most serious of these is that the book really does not add anything new on its topics, covered in its separate chapters. For those who have read up on the subject, and by this I mean layman, not professional or even serious physicists, astronomers or cosmologists, the book does not provide anything new. By anything new I mean not only in terms of facts but also in terms of perspectives or even conjecture. The book’s content is, unfortunately, adds nothing new to the many books on these subjects. In addition, the relatively short lengths of the chapters (about 20 pages each) do not permit more than rudimentary coverage of the relative topics of each chapter.

In short, for those with a very basic knowledge in the field seeking a rudimentary but succinct introduction, this book will rate 3 to 4 stars. But for anyone with more knowledge beyond the most rudimentary level, the book will probably not be worth the time.

This is definitely a book that is a mixed bag. It is one whose identity of the intended audience I am unsure of. I really can't say who this book has been written for, yet I think it can be an enjoyable book. I am not at all convinced that someone who has read A Brief History of Time will have the appropriate familiarity with the concepts in this book to see it as worthwhile --and believe me when I say that this book is a compilations of lectures that lacks all introductory information necessary to understand it. What's more, I can see the graduate student of physics could be bored by this book. Therefore, in considering who has the knowledge to handle this book, and who (with the knowledge) would not be bored by it, I have concluded that this book must be geared towards the undergraduate student of the sciences. I hope this little excursion into trying to figure out at whom this book is directed conveys some of my frustration with it.

These grumblings aside, the book is not bad. Basically, the book presents topics in physics that are at the frontier, and which are topics of a great deal of discussion. Additionally, the format of these lectures is more like that of public lectures than a university style lectures, as no technical mathematics is presented.

Overall, I would say this: who you are will greatly determine whether you will enjoy this book. It was a bit banal for me, given my background in physics. If you don't have an undergraduate knowledge of science, but have read an inordinate amount of popular physics, or are willing to actively research terms and concepts while reading, then you will do fine, I think; but you will not be able to read this book straight through, front to back.

To conclude, this is a four star book for an audience like undergraduates of sciences, but more like a two star book for most everyone else. Hawking also says (on his website: [...] ) that he wishes the this particular book weren't still in print, because it no longer reflects his views, so that is one more point to consider, if you are think about buying this on. For me, that consideration is what made the book slightly more interesting of a read.

This is definitely a book that is a mixed bag. It is one whose identity of the intended audience I am unsure of. I really can't say who this book has been written for, yet I think it can be an enjoyable book. I am not at all convinced that someone who has read A Brief History of Time will have the appropriate familiarity with the concepts in this book to see it as worthwhile --and believe me when I say that this book is a compilations of lectures that lacks all introductory information necessary to understand it. What's more, I can see the graduate student of physics could be bored by this book. Therefore, in considering who has the knowledge to handle this book, and who (with the knowledge) would not be bored by it, I have concluded that this book must be geared towards the undergraduate student of the sciences. I hope this little excursion into trying to figure out at whom this book is directed conveys some of my frustration with it.

These grumblings aside, the book is not bad. Basically, the book presents topics in physics that are at the frontier, and which are topics of a great deal of discussion. Additionally, the format of these lectures is more like that of public lectures than a university style lectures, as no technical mathematics is presented.

Overall, I would say this: who you are will greatly determine whether you will enjoy this book. It was a bit banal for me, given my background in physics. If you don't have an undergraduate knowledge of science, but have read an inordinate amount of popular physics, or are willing to actively research terms and concepts while reading, then you will do fine, I think; but you will not be able to read this book straight through, front to back.

To conclude, this is a four star book for an audience like undergraduates of sciences, but more like a two star book for most everyone else. Hawking also says (on his website: [...] ) that he wishes the this particular book weren't still in print, because it no longer reflects his views, so that is one more point to consider, if you are think about buying this on. For me, that consideration is what made the book slightly more interesting of a read.

This book contains a series of lectures by Hawking. Publications by or about Hawking and his ideas will have some overlap of content, and this book is no exception.

While it is good to have Hawking's lectures in writing, we find ourselves at the mercy of the editor who's job it is to make sure transcriptions are faithful. Unfortunately, there are two instances where large numbers are misrepresented. One, for example, shows the number "1,019" instead of 10 to the 19th power, which clearly makes more sense. A novice inquirer into cosmology may be misled by these typos.

Hawking is always an interesting read. He publishes books often enough so that if you keep current, you are generally reviewing the same ideas, but with each publication, the state of the knowledge has advanced enough to warrant another summing up.
Hawking's major claims to fame are his work on black holes and the boundary conditions of space/time, including event horizons, cosmic strings, and the potential for wormholes. He gives a fair amount of thought to the possibility of backwards time travel.
Everybody agrees that moving forward in time is not a problem (see Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity 1905). Moving backwards in time is problematic, and Hawking believes that Nature will not allow it. There is a lot of work being done presently in this area, and some good thought experiments suggesting the possibility, but after reading Hawking, I am fairly convinced that we will not find it possible to move backwards in time, and even if it is possible, the time traveller will no longer be in his same universe, so why bother?
Hawking aims his prose at the level of the intellectual Star Trek afficianado, which makes him an engaging read for the interested layman. He is careful never to include any mathematical equations in his books, using instead analogies and thought experiments. I recommend this book, deducting the 5th star only because much of the book is remedial.

With a wonderfully whimsical title and a slim volume of text containing an absorbing series of Stephen Hawking lectures to browse through, this straightforward and carefully paced series of essay-style lectures has much to offer the layperson regarding the nature of the universe that surrounds us. While Hawking does not offer the students either easy answers to complex questions or a single unifying theory that neatly ties together all of the aspects of 21st century physics, the lectures do provide a marvelous set of precepts for use in understanding the nature of the phenomena that we find ourselves enveloped within.
For people with a math phobia, the text is quite friendly, exquisitely sidestepping any resort to such devices in describing, explaining and summarizing the total sum of the state of the art perspectives on 21st century physics. Thus, the lectures are both introductory in terms of the language employed in his expositions and occasionally are also quite metaphorical. Hawking uses a broad variety of authoritative sources, including everyone from Einstein to his contemporary (and colleague) Richard Feynman as well as his own provocative findings. Taken as a whole, the lectures (essays) are crisp, clear, and well accomplished, and while the reader will have to gird his loins occasionally to trudge through some difficult and vague areas within, the main thrust of the text is reader-friendly and easy to absorb intellectually.
Professor Hawking provides a yeoman service to the populace at large in helping to make science and the theoretical underpinnings of modern society much more accessible to everyman. In a world increasingly oriented around high technology and the offspring of such theoretical constructs, it is critically important for ordinary citizens to understand more about the revolutionary explosion in scientific knowledge that so profoundly affects us. By sharing such knowledge with us in an eminently accessible fashion, Stephen Hawking helps us to become better informed and more involved citizens. I highly recommend this book for a general audience. Enjoy!

I am fascinated by Dr. Hawking's work in cosmology, and gathered the fact that when he made the choice of either becoming a particle physicist or a cosmologist, he implicitly became both: For I do not believe there to be a discontinuity between the two fields. Ernest Sternglass, for example, in "Before the Big Bang," argues that an electron and positron are the truly fundamental particles, and that there were the basis of a primeval atom that gave rise to our universe. In his work, he suggests that particle physicists have paid insufficient attention to the relativistic effects on space-time curvature at the speeds that the original particles were moving electrodynamically--thus, they have not realized that a primitive pair of particles such as these may have spun out the entirety of our comos' Eiensteinian four-space: He suggests that the entire description that he gives of our cosmos is that of a rotating quantum cosmological black hole, and this is connected in my opinion with your discovery of Hawking radiation. The model Sternglass advances requires a 16 trillion year period before the Big Bang occurs; in this "era" of our cosmos' evolution, the relativistically rotating pair generate in kinetic energy all the mass that we see as the galactic structure of our beautiful comos, but, at some point, that energy had to be converted to mass, and some event had to produce that; i.e., the transition phase--as Einstein's energy/mass relation--had to have a cause. I have begun to theorize that the central piece in this puzzle could be the neutrino; in my opinion (which is not that of a physicist, but of a philosopher whose orientation is to Vienna's Circle of Logical positivists), the nucleus of hydrogen--i.e., its proton gives birth to a neutron by the mechanism of neutrino creation: Dr. Sternglass argued that in one unique (Born Statistical) case the sole orbiting electron of the proton is captured by the nucleus as has been observed or is predicted I am not sure which. However, this mechanism or quantum event may suggest that the neutron explodes into existence once the nuclei of hydrogen have absorbed the maximum quanta of electrons; in other words, just as Bohr discovered that the electrons can move from lower energy to higher energy orbits, so too, ex hypothesi, the nucleus can also vary--from lower energy states to higher, except that when it absorbs the highest degree of electron energy, it divides into itself and the neutron, thereby producing, in potentia, all of the possible states that matter can be in; Dr. Sternglass' model also has the great merit that it would allow us to logically derive certain of the fundamental constants of nature logico-emperically, and further, since along the lines of the Dirac large numbers conjecture, it sees a profound relationship between the small scale structure of our cosmos and the large. How does all of this relate to the neutrino? It makes some sense, I think, to look at the neutrino as the quantum constructed graviton; it is an extremely light particle, but it is not wieghtless (great picture, by the way!), and therefore it has structure on my view: I postulate a tripartite structure consisting of a tightly bound electron and positron bound by the neutrino. Since the neutrino is not wieghtless and has structure, how is it that it can contain particles which are heavier than its own mass: The only explanation I can give for this is that the electron and positron in this state are highly relativistically motional, but the more energy they absorb the lighter--hence potentially more massive--they are;moreover, in my view the entire quantum field is undergoing at all times conversions of energy to mass and from mass to energy; it is oscilating. It is my further conjecture that the Riemann zeta function is at the heart of this process, the very pulse of the atom and the entire quantum mechanical wave function of the universe. some support for Sternglass' view comes from a method that Brian stedjee, and a process that he developed for sorting out the fundamental particles: my work can be viewed here:PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity And Gravity.Before the Big Bang: The Origins of the UniverseThe Life of the CosmosThe Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe

This book is basically a history and philosophy about chemistry, physics, and especially astronomy. Ideas discussed in this book are very complex, yet broken down very well into understandable chunks. Still, a general backround in the physical sciences is necessary to really grasp what he's saying. One way he makes ideas understandable is by using simple analogies. For example, he is talking about how as the universe expands, all bodies around the earth move away from it, making it seem like we really are the center of the universe. However, he clears this up by offering the analogy of a balloon being blown up that has dots all over it. From the perspective of any dot, all the other dots are moving away from it and there really is no center. I found it to be a fast read, but one that I wanted to go over once again just to understand things better.

Stephen Hawking's The Theory of Everything is a short book that can act as an introduction to the subjects of cosmology raised by modern science, but the book is only that; I preferred his Brief History of Time to this work because it was longer, more detailed, and covered more ground. If you are looking for a very basic introduction to the current thinking of astrophysicists, this is a good book; if you really want to wrestle with the subject at length, you should buy a Brief History of Time, or one of Paul Davies works, such as About Time. If you are looking for a good lecture series on physics, Richard Feynman's Six Easy Pieces and its sequel, Six Not So Easy Pieces is really the finest of this genre.
That being said, the book does a good job in outlining the basic subject matter, discussing the development of the Big Bang theory, and the implications of both the general theory of relativity and quantum physics on the formation of the universe. Hawking is at his best when discussing singularities -- the points of the universe, such as black holes, where the laws of physics break down.

Much to my surprise, there were some errors in the statement and application of physical principles in the book. A giant like Hawking would not make such errors, and my guess is that he turned careless.
At times, the prose became rather personal and it spoke of some items of which I had neither the desire to know nor the interest to follow through.
He is not very respectful of his rivals and does not take criticism of his work lightly.
The author does great work with his illustrations and explanations and takes large strides in bringing physics to the masses.
The book is written as a series of lectures, and I found it difficult to place myself in the audience. I also felt that I am going to receive a pop quiz at any minute within the lecture. It would have been more illuminating had the writing been in the form of narrative and had a descriptive format.
I did not care much for the author's repetitive references to god. The author's numerous attempts to allow the coexistence of god with physics became rather tiresome at the end.

This short book is a collection of lectures given by this eminent physicist.

Unfortunately, the content of the book reads more like a Sunday afternoon discussion than a serious and intense investigation into what the title of the book promises. I always hate to be mislead and the title of this book is misleading to me. If an author is going to be as bold as to adopt the title of his book as the "Theory of Everything" and the "Orgin and Fate of the Universe," then I expect something more than a recapitulation of a series of theories that may lead up to a theory of everything.

The brevity of the book leaves so much unexplained. If I had not already read other books about string theory, quantum physics and relativity, I would have lost the significance of the thesis as the author "tip toes" lightly over these topics.

This is a book written by a brilliant mind in a complex field of study. Frankly, I expected a lot more. Perhaps the author was targeting a certain audience, of which I was not a member. This is good example of going too far afield to reach a general readership.

Even if this product is unofficial, and unsanctioned by Stephen Hawking himself, I have to say I enjoyed it.
I liked how its topics were so clearly delineated into thematically cohesive lectures, I liked that the author read them himself using a computer, and I loved the clear and organized way that Hawking laid out topics as complex and unfathomable as black holes and time and the beginning of the universe.
Don't buy this, I suppose, since it's really not sanctioned by Hawking himself, but do buy his other work that basically repeats this same material.
Do buy this, though, if you're a Hawking completist, already have all his other books, and are looking for just a little bit more.
I loved it.

This is a collection of seven related lectures by Hawking originally published in 1996 under the title, The Cambridge Lectures: Life Works. He does not cover as much ground here as in did in A Brief History of Time, but what he does cover he does so in a charming and engaging style. There are some few statements here that could be interpreted as less than modest--although not by me--and a mistaken prediction or two, which may be a reason that Hawking is not pleased with this book's publication. He might also object to the title, since neither a "Theory of Everything" nor a conclusive answer to the origin and fate of the universe are presented.

However, Hawking does address these questions, and his expression is interesting to read and has the agreeable characteristic of being laconic. There are no equations in the book, no mathematics as such, and everything is explained in language that would be intelligible to a high school student. There are the usual droll Hawking jokes about God and His intentions, facetious, epigram-like understatements (I have done a lot of work on black holes, and it would all be wasted if it turned out that black holes do not exist. p. 66) and witty asides about the convergence of politics on physics, as when he mentions a particle accelerator the size of the Solar System that "would not be funded under current economic conditions."

A good chunk of the book is devoted to black holes (about which Hawking is or was the world's foremost authority) and whether they have "hair" and "sweat" or not. Hawking avers on page 92 that if a primordial black hole is discovered "emitting a lot of gamma and X rays," he will get the Nobel Prize. This is an ironic lament since, as he explains later on, it is most likely that even if these very difficult to observe and very ancient black holes do exist, they are mostly evaporated by now, and so it is probable there will be no Nobel for Hawking.

He also discusses a "no boundary condition" (p.119) of the big bang universe which seems to begin and end in a singularity in real-time while in imaginary time there are no singularities, just beginning and ending poles, like the north and south poles of the finite, unbounded surface of the earth. (p. 139) I especially like this idea since it does away with the infinite singularity and the theological implications that some draw from such a beginning of the universe. As Hawking asks rhetorically, in a "completely self-contained" universe with no boundary or edge--a universe "neither created nor destroyed"--what place would there be for a creator? (p. 126)

He also addresses string theory, and I was pleased to read that he is no more enamored of all those little curled up dimensions than I am. He says the theory has several other problems that need to be worked out, not the least of which is that we still don't know whether all the infinities will cancel out. (p. 159)

Hawking closes with his ideas about the prospect for a Theory of Everything. He gives three possibilities: (1) There is a "complete unified theory which we will someday discover..." (2) There's no ultimate theory, "just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately." (3) There's no theory, period: "Events...occur in a random and arbitrary manner." He seems to like (1) believing "that there is a good chance...[for] a complete unified theory by the end of the century..." Apparently--since he is speaking from circa 1996--he means the twentieth century. In that case he's wrong since we haven't yet gotten such a theory.

For the record, I like (2). I think that our present "laws" are approximations that we will continue to improve on. I believe we develop the ability through science to better and better order our environment and to increase our knowledge. I don't believe we are actually discovering "ultimate truth."

Hawking asks here as he has elsewhere, "Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" Why is there anything at all? He believes that if we do discover a complete theory, we will then be able to answer this question, and then we would "know the mind of God."

--Dennis Littrell, author of "Hard Science and the Unknowable"

In response to the reviewer who said the Kindle version has no illustrations - I have the Kindle version of this, and it has all the same illustrations as the hard cover edition. Not only that, the illustrations are all in full color and fully-linked in the credits section. I would highly recommend the Kindle version to anyone looking for an ebook version of this book. Disclosure: My company did the formatting for this book along with the illustrations and links (Fowler Digital Services).

Fortunately i requested a sample and glad i did.
I stupidly ignored the ILLUSTRATED part of the title and know from
previous experience that Kindle and illustrations aren't meant to go
together.
I am probably, also stupidly, ignorant of how to view illustrations but i can't figure it out
and they are simply not viewable on my PaperWhite.

Stephen Hawking has a gift with words. The ability to explain complex physics in simple words and help readers visualize these concepts through appropriate examples differentiates Hawking from lesser writers

Locked as he is in his encyclopedia of cosmology, Stephen Hawking, spends too much of the book positing the question: "Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" The answer he proposes is "just because." Hawking is obsessed with knowing the mind of God which he seems to equate with THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING. Yes, he may succeed in uniting quantum uncertainty with gravity but knowing all the physical laws may not make it any easier for man to live or survive. I would describe this little treatise on the origin and fate of the Universe as his attempt to create a universe with soul. He is much like his idol Einstein who couldn't accept a universe appearing out of the random throw of the dice.
Although Hawking complements Wittgenstein as being the most famous philosopher of the 20th Century, he pays no heed to Ludwig's admonition to stick to the analysis of language. Thus he fashions the analogy of a universe like the surface of a world globe-with two additional dimensions-to suggest that initial boundary conditions are not required. Hawking takes his own metaphor literally. Therefore, there is no need for any agency to have created such a universe.
If Hawking's no boundary universe is correct then he says the creator would have had little freedom or no choice in establishing the initial conditions. He paints the creator in the image of Hawking-a God who discovered a Theory of Everything. He may as well have concluded that the universe with all its TOEs or GUTs is a self designed entity. Still the book is good material for sci-fi writers who would explain that imaginary numbers and realities are the good stuff out of which the universe is constructed and reality may only be virtual reality.

This book, like the theory of relativity, is something I can grasp for a brief period of time and then it slips away. The first chapters gave a fascinating history and mini-review of where we've been but as he progressed I could not get my mind around some of the concepts he was discussing and some of the basic terms he used weren't explained. Such is the fate when trying to appeal to a broader range of people. For me, Carl Sagan's works were much easier to understand. Hawking does an admirable job but if you do not have a science background, or are bent in that direction, this may not be the best book for you. For us poor huddled masses what Hawking needs to do is get a good ghost writer with a minimal science background and have the writer come up with analogies to what Hawking is discussing. I know I could have used some additional explaining when he started talking about the extra 20+ dimensions, singularities and the string theory. Around the string theory I stopped treading water and drowned. All in all though, I would like to see more of trying to explain science to us unwashed and sadly miss Sagan. Hawking is to be commended and I hopes he continues the attempts. I will attempt to read his future works in that direction.

I always wondered as a child what's happening up there: Why are there so many stars that are so many light years away from us and why weren't there any next to us? That curiosity grew substantially after learning only certain facts about our universe in my freshman year. The Theory of Everything by Stephen Hawking is a non-fiction science literature that is constituted of almost every theory related to the incessantly evolving ideas about our Universe proposed by myriad scientists. It is a unique opportunity to explore the universe with the greatest mind since Einstein. Based on a series of lectures given at Cambridge University, the author's work introduced "the history of ideas about the universe" as well as today's most important scientific theories about time, space and the cosmos in a easy-to-understand way. I think that this book is by far the best scientific literary piece available that significantly delineates almost all of the theories ever proposed by some great philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato, and by some great scientists such as Albert Einstein etc.

The contextual information is lucidly laid out in seven lectures that are presented chronologically. As the author starts off by talking about the earliest theories ever proposed by the scientists and philosophers, my eyes were more and more compelled, by the detailed layout of the facts about our universe, to go on to the next line, to the next paragraph, to the next page, and at last to the conclusion of the book. Moreover, what made the book more interesting and comprehensible was the straightforward writing style; I didn't have to pay attention to every single word. One example: "The lower the mass of the black hole, the higher its temperature is. So as the black hole loses mass, its temperature and rate of emission increase." The language used by the author is very simple. Even the use of scientific terminology was minimal and if anything then it was explained with relevant examples.

Although there is no plot in this book, the factual information presented is no worse than any other plot such as a satirical one, or a one with mystery, or even a romantic one. The structural representation of the text is very clear; author first "develops" a theory, then explains it; after that he presents the examples that were conducted to prove the specific theory, then he presents the antithetical viewpoint presented by some other scientist and finally, he describes the solution that was either compromised by the two adversaries or the one that was more accepted.

I would recommend this book to people who are very interested in learning about the Earth and Space Science, and to those who have some basic knowledge of that specific field. The Theory of Everything would be well read by those studying religious theory and philosophy as well as those interested in physics. It is a book that should get anyone interested in questions such as "Why does anything exist?" and "Is there a God?" thinking. It should offer comfort, too, to those religious people who do believe in God, to learn that science hasn't really found anything to conflict with their beliefs in any meaningful way.

This book provides a historical perspective of the events leading up to the quest for finding a unified theory. It is a very light read that can be finished in a couple of hours. In some points, Steven Hawking dwelves a little deeper, especially in his own work on blackholes. However, if the reader is looking for more substance, especially into today's challenges, then I recommend the following book, "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory" by Brian Greene.

The book is a serie of lecture by the author at differrent time. It gives an idea of several basic things about people who are interested in learning about the universe to the students of the subject. His explantion is quite clear and easy to understand. It also explains time travel. If you are interested about the universe and don't know where to start. This is a book you can begin with and that's how I see it.

Imagine the simultaneous intellect, ignorance, and arrogance required to publish a "credible" book entitled "THE Theory of EVERYTHING." Perhaps a title like "A theory of everything" would attract more sensible readers. That being said I still plan to read it out of curiosity.

I'm not a math or science-y person, but I actually enjoyed Hawking's "Theory of Everything." It helps that the cover is fantastic and the book is less than 150 pages-- making it a great gift for any science buff or space whiz (or anyone else who likes to think outside of the box.) Don't be fooled by its sleek packaging, though-- it's the same heavy Hawking you know and love, just... simpler.

Very, very cool book-- now I just have to wait for my boyfriend to read it so we can discuss...!

I always wondered as a child what's happening up there: Why are there so many stars that are so many light years away from us and why weren't there any next to us? That curiosity grew substantially after learning only certain facts about our universe in my freshman year. The Theory of Everything by Stephen Hawking is a non-fiction science literature that is constituted of almost every theory related to the incessantly evolving ideas about our Universe proposed by myriad scientists. It is a unique opportunity to explore the universe with the greatest mind since Einstein. Based on a series of lectures given at Cambridge University, the author's work introduced "the history of ideas about the universe" as well as today's most important scientific theories about time, space and the cosmos in a easy-to-understand way. I think that this book is by far the best scientific literary piece available that significantly delineates almost all of the theories ever proposed by some great philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato, and by some great scientists such as Albert Einstein etc.

The contextual information is lucidly laid out in seven lectures that are presented chronologically. As the author starts off by talking about the earliest theories ever proposed by the scientists and philosophers, my eyes were more and more compelled, by the detailed layout of the facts about our universe, to go on to the next line, to the next paragraph, to the next page, and at last to the conclusion of the book. Moreover, what made the book more interesting and comprehensible was the straightforward writing style; I didn't have to pay attention to every single word. One example: "The lower the mass of the black hole, the higher its temperature is. So as the black hole loses mass, its temperature and rate of emission increase." The language used by the author is very simple. Even the use of scientific terminology was minimal and if anything then it was explained with relevant examples.

Although there is no plot in this book, the factual information presented is no worse than any other plot such as a satirical one, or a one with mystery, or even a romantic one. The structural representation of the text is very clear; author first "develops" a theory, then explains it; after that he presents the examples that were conducted to prove the specific theory, then he presents the antithetical viewpoint presented by some other scientist and finally, he describes the solution that was either compromised by the two adversaries or the one that was more accepted.

I would recommend this book to people who are very interested in learning about the Earth and Space Science, and to those who have some basic knowledge of that specific field. The Theory of Everything would be well read by those studying religious theory and philosophy as well as those interested in physics. It is a book that should get anyone interested in questions such as "Why does anything exist?" and "Is there a God?" thinking. It should offer comfort, too, to those religious people who do believe in God, to learn that science hasn't really found anything to conflict with their beliefs in any meaningful way.

This book provides a historical perspective of the events leading up to the quest for finding a unified theory. It is a very light read that can be finished in a couple of hours. In some points, Steven Hawking dwelves a little deeper, especially in his own work on blackholes. However, if the reader is looking for more substance, especially into today's challenges, then I recommend the following book, "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory" by Brian Greene.

The book is a serie of lecture by the author at differrent time. It gives an idea of several basic things about people who are interested in learning about the universe to the students of the subject. His explantion is quite clear and easy to understand. It also explains time travel. If you are interested about the universe and don't know where to start. This is a book you can begin with and that's how I see it.

I'm not a math or science-y person, but I actually enjoyed Hawking's "Theory of Everything." It helps that the cover is fantastic and the book is less than 150 pages-- making it a great gift for any science buff or space whiz (or anyone else who likes to think outside of the box.) Don't be fooled by its sleek packaging, though-- it's the same heavy Hawking you know and love, just... simpler.

Very, very cool book-- now I just have to wait for my boyfriend to read it so we can discuss...!

While I sympathize with Mr. Hawking's distress regarding the unauthorized publication of this book, I enjoyed it enormously none-the-less. Much of the material in this book has been published previously, but this format is more reader friendly to those of us with an average IQ. Several reviews have given "The Theory of Everything" a one star rating and have even encouraged others to refuse to buy or read the book. However despite the sensitivities regarding the publication of Hawking's work this is still a really good book which can be enjoyed by anyone with an interest in science.

With its wide margins, large typeface, and slim 167-page profile, this collection of seven lectures almost qualifies as a pamphlet. You'll speed through it in no time, but it is pleasantly written. If you have an interest in popular science, you've likely seen much of the information before; the book is really just highlights of Hawking's previously published works. But it is a nice survey of current theories about cosmology, black holes, and the nature of time. Heavy subjects, treated lightly.

IMPORTANT NOTE
It has come to our attention that the book "The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe" has been published. Professor Hawking would like to make it clear that he has not endorsed this book. The text was written by him many years ago, however the material has already been published in books such as 'A Brief History of Time'. A complaint was made to the Federal Trade Commission in the US in the hope that they would prevent the publication. We would urge you not to purchase this book in the belief that Professor Hawking was involved in its creation.

This book PALES in comparison with A Brief History of Time and A Briefer History of Time.

I highly recommend either of those two books over this one.

Hawking clearly fleshes out his important findings in this book, but it's essentially an abridged version of his earlier A Brief History of Time, and the recent The Universe In A Nutshell. His latest incarnation of singularity physics and grand unifying theory speculation offers no new research from the last three or so years, and virtually everything can be found in either A Brief History of Time or in Universe in a Nutshell. If you're trying to meet a paper deadline, buy this book. Otherwise, read his more detailed and illustrated works for better comprehension

This is a book that takes the most incomprehensible material, theories, and operations of our universe, and breaks them down to the simplest form. Using "balloon" analogies and simple descriptions, Hawking is able to simplify the theories of space, time, and, well, 'Everything' else. I loved this book! Whether you're a fan of science fact, or science fiction, this is a book that will expand your understanding and appreciation of our wonderful universe.

"It has come to our attention that the book 'THE THEORY OF EVERTHING: THE ORIGIN AND FATE OF THE UNIVERSE' has been published. Professor Hawking would like to make it clear that he HAS NOT endorsed this book. The text was written by him many years ago, however the material has already been published in books such as 'A Brief History of Time'. A complaint was made to the Federal Trade Commission in the US in the hope that they would prevent the publication.
[...]

Hawking's story makes him a media favorite. The press (who know minimal physics if any) have for years given him the title "Greatest Mind Since Einstein". He is an excellent physicist and a decent teacher but he is no where near being in the same league as Einstein, Newton or Maxwell. Paul Dirac and Richard Feynman are arguably the two most distinguished 20th Century physicists. Ed Witten may be the most distinguished living physicist.
Feynman (through his lectures transcribed on audiocassette/text formats and books) is perhaps physics's greatest teacher for the layperson and expert alike. Feynman had an unmatched knack for explaining high level physics in an original way. His "Lectures on Physics" is a classic and should be on the bookshelves of all physicists. Feynman's QED is the best non-mathematical description of quantum mechanics ever (QED stands for quantum electrodynamics, for which Feynman shared the Nobel Prize). Read reviews on these and Feynman's other works.
For those who want to read about what many physicists view as the best candidate for a "theory of everything", read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. Hyperspace by Michio Kaku is another great book of the same vane. I cannot recommend these two books enough. These are the best.

Pr. Hawking gives this opinion on this book ! The policy here is not to give URLs, so just search for Pr. Hawking homepage on the web and you will know... I quote : "We would urge you not to purchase this book in the belief that Professor Hawking was involved in its creation."
I suggest that you instead buy "A Brief History of Time" which is a terribly great book !
My comment on New Millenium Pr (publisher) is that it looks like they have little scruples... Who would try to make money on a disabled person ?

Number one, this is a love story, and a powerful one. Their marriage didn't last, but the point is well made that love can overcome the most devastating of illnesses. This film is very well done. It is very English.

THIS BOOK MAKES EVERYTHING I HAVE ALWAYS WOUNDERED ABOUT REASONABLY EASY TO UNDERSTAND.IT ALMOST READS LIKE A MYSTERY WHERE THE READER GETSB AT THE END OF EACH CHAPTER TO FIND OUT "WHO DONE IT."I LEARNED MORE FROM THIS BOOK THAN FROM ALL OF MY TIME IN THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.CLEARLY THIS IS PROFFESSOR HAWKINGS MASTER WORK.

The book is well written and is a classic. I am sad to learn that the long term fate of humans is so grim. The material is a challenge to accept. However, I am glad I read it. The book arrived promptly in new condition. The publication information leads me to think this book was printed in India.