The Book of nothing

Keeping in mind that the author aspires to explain "complicated" issues like voids, vacuums and the general concept of nothingness, this book could indeed have been another horror to read through like many such books are for those of us who dont spend our lives in labs.
I was more than surprised then when i discovered that for 200 odd pages (2/3 of the effort) D.Barrow does an incredible job explaining his subject in brilliant manner.

Beginning by backtracking in history, to exhibit how the ancients dealt with the concept of nothing and therefore needing to introduce the conception and the introduction (or non-introduction) of the number zero Barrow kept me heavily intrigued and increasingly stimulated. I was in fact in pure awe for a while, especially as the book progressed to the origins of the universe, early experiments about the vacuum and the startling things we've discovered about it, and then on to the ever-fascinating subject of the expansion of the universe (or agin, the non-expansion thereof). That part of the book is very enriched with philosophy which makes it all the more captivating. Philosophy, it may be unknown to some, has played a pivotal part in the development of physics. Before you can ever begin experimenting with anything you first need to grasp it even as an abstract concept in your mind.

That far, this was easily the first book that could explain in a very comprehensive manner why the universe might be expanding and what the causes of such an effect might be, as well as, the effect of vacuums in this process. The joy didnt stop there, at least not for a while yet. Introducing theinevitable Einstein theorisations the author kept using down-to-earth language and very effective examples to build his case.

But then for reasons i believe to be obvious the whole things falls apart. As if another author takes over 2/3 of the way in, the "Book of nothing" becomes almost a list-down of mathematical types, and descriptions of ultra-complicated experiments and even more convoluted theories. Worse yet, the language becomes wooden and tiresome, the examples fade off to ambiguity and the reading becomes a very, very difficult task.
An incredible effect to watch unfolding before my very eyes. I couldn't believe how much i'd actually grasped through the early stages of this book and how "nothing" (there is my pun) i grasped later on. And saying i grasped nothing later on is meant literally. I found myself reading the last 150 pages of the "Book of Nothing" as if it were hieroglyphics and were it not for the brilliance of this book initially i would've given it up all together.

What happened then. Well, in my opinion, what happened was one of the following or some combination of them:
-Barrow might actually be a better philosopher than he's a physicist, hence he might be practicing the wrong profession.
-as is the case with other scientists who've written such ambitious books, the suspicion lingers threatfully on that they themselves might not understand what they're talking about. Indeed, a major principle of communication states that if your message is not understood then it is 100% your fault. But even more importantly, if your message isnt understood then your message might not be...right.

Whichever the case, this is not the important thing. What is important is how this book is divided in half. Half of it absolutely incredible, fun to read, ultra-stimulating and then the other half a pure torture of a read with no reward in sight.

For the part that does reward though i couldn't possibly over-reccommend this book. It's a must read especially if you feel there are concepts you dont seem to understand about the latest theories concerning the universe, its origins or its future, the vacuums and voids and other elements connected to this big (second pun, unintended this time) picture.

If you find yourself giving up on the "Book of nothing" as you approach its conclusion, dont worry. Your overall effort wont be in nought.

The first chapters of the book are quite good. Barrow gives us a history lesson on the development of the mathematical concept of zero as well as the historical concept of "nothing" which science will turn into the concept of vacuum. We get to read about the use of zero as a place holder in more complex numbering systems as well as its coming into being as a number. We get to read about the some of the great scientists--Pascal, Newton, Michelson, Einstein--doing experiments and tossing around ideas like the aether. All of this is interesting and well told.

However, about half-way through the wheels start to fall off. Barrow is not nearly as good at explaining the modern concepts of the vacuum as he is about telling of its historical development. Modern physics is again grappling with the question of whether or not a true vacuum can exist. It may be that fluctuations in the vacuum caused the Big Bang and are constantly creating multiple universes, for example. But though Barrow discusses these things, he does not do so in a very coherent manner. Alan Guth, for instance, did a much better job of discussing these same subjects in his book on the inflationary universe theory.

Plus, Barrow is clearly out to toot his own horn a bit in the last couple chapters by mentioning his own contributions to the development of the subject. It just so happens that his contributions don't seem nearly as important as other authors who have written on similar subjects. For those readers interested in the history of zero and the vacuum, I would suggest reading this book through chapter five and then putting it aside.

However, the last third or so of the book is another story. This part often comes across like the author was rushed or something, and on average the reading is simply more tedious and difficult than it needs to be. Rather than being fun and informative, the effort required to extract the few worthwhile morsels of information probably isn't worth it.

Even though I have mixed feelings about it, I would still consider recommending this book to anyone typically interested in mathematics and physics. But for something that covers much of the same basic subject matter in a more enjoyable way, I would probably instead recommend "Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea" by Charles Seife.

The second part was very interesting but heavy going at times. Some theories or hypotheses were explained well, others just wouldn't sink in. You have to be wide awake to get the best out of it or maybe just read the words at face value, without trying to get a full understanding about each subject.

So, a book roughly of two halves, each of which may have warranted a whole book each. I'd certainly like to have read more thorough explanations of many of the ideas about scalar fields, and vacuum energy states. Worth a read but I think it's going to take a second read for me to get the most out of this book.

I am in the final year of high school I am studying maths and physics at a high level and I found at times the descriptions were hard to follow. Having said this you get out of the book what you put in and the topics discussed are very interesting. It is written after Steven Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' and adds to some of the ideas talked about in there but I would still suggest that you should read 'A Brief History of Time' as well.

I liked this book at times, yes, it was a hard read and I had to go back and read bits again to get a good understanding but it was rewarding in the knowledge gained for it.

Physics is a big subject but the author found a narrow and well defined thread to follow that starts with the need for a zero placeholder in number systems and ends with the recently discovered expansion of the universe and zero point energy. He uses history, philosophy, mathematics and physics to move the reader along this thread. The delving into real physics concepts is so fearlessly done that it may turn off the Walter Mitty types who dream of Nobel Prizes. The math used is oriented toward logic rather than calculation.

I can see where some new readers in physics might get lost in a very few places because names of theories are bandied about with no attached explanation of what or how. But this may be due to editor mishap rather then author intention. Stuff like this can be yet another reason to read another physics book. Like Roger Penrose's books, John Barrow's reflect an active researcher's ideas as well as accepted theory so don't be suprised that you may be reading about some things that no one else in the field supports. I think this is the reason why I like this book so much anyway.