Reviews from Amazon

Reviews elsewhere on the web:

Julian Barbour

The End of Time

The first part of this book takes a very simple universe with just three particles, making a triangle. Barbour shows how a configuration of such a universe can be represented as a point in a hypothetical space, Platonia. This leads on to discussions of absolute space and time. The book then introduces the reader to quantum mechanics and relatvity and so is suitable for the non-specialist reader. The book concludes with a discussion of Barbour's claim that the flow of time is an illusion, that all that we truly experience are instants. Barbour is a skilled writer, and I think that anyone interested in the philosophy of time will find much of interest in this book.

I have to say that I think that there are problems with Barbour's ideas though. Firstly relativity says that there are many ways of matching 'now' here with 'now' elsewhere. Barbour includes all such ways as part of Platonia, which I feel is excessively bloated as a result - mathematical fictions have been substituted for reality. The second problem is the deciding what exactly an instant is - do we have to accept uncountably many instants in the smallest interval. I find any philosophy which requires a particular structure for time at the lowest level to suspect. However, I wouldn't say that these were criticisms of the book, rather an indication of how Barbour's ideas can stimulate discussion.

Amazon.com info

Paperback 384 pages
ISBN: 0195145925
Salesrank: 31408
Weight:0.97 lbs

Published: 2001 Oxford University Press, USA

Amazon price $16.47

Marketplace:New from $7.93:Used from $6.25

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Paperback 384 pages
ISBN: 0753810204
Salesrank: 182973
Weight:0.53 lbs

Published: 2000 Phoenix

Amazon price £6.74

Marketplace:New from £3.58:Used from £2.23

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Paperback 384 pages
ISBN: 0195145925
Salesrank: 23251
Weight:0.97 lbs

Published: 2001 Oxford University Press

Amazon price CDN$ 14.19

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 14.19:Used from CDN$ 25.94

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
Richard Feynman once quipped that "Time is what happens when nothing else does." But Julian Barbour disagrees: if nothing happened, if nothing changed, then time would stop. For time is nothing but change. It is change that we perceive occurring all around us, not time. Put simply, time does not exist. In this highly provocative volume, Barbour presents the basic evidence for a timeless universe, and shows why we still experience the world as intensely temporal. It is a book that strikes at the heart of modern physics. It casts doubt on Einstein's greatest contribution, the spacetime continuum, but also points to the solution of one of the great paradoxes of modern science, the chasm between classical and quantum physics. Indeed, Barbour argues that the holy grail of physicists--the unification of Einstein's general relativity with quantum mechanics--may well spell the end of time. Barbour writes with remarkable clarity as he ranges from the ancient philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides, through the giants of science Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, to the work of the contemporary physicists John Wheeler, Roger Penrose, and Steven Hawking. Along the way he treats us to enticing glimpses of some of the mysteries of the universe, and presents intriguing ideas about multiple worlds, time travel, immortality, and, above all, the illusion of motion. The End of Time is a vibrantly written and revolutionary book. It turns our understanding of reality inside-out.

Product Description

Richard Feynman once quipped that "Time is what happens when nothing else does." But Julian Barbour disagrees: if nothing happened, if nothing changed, then time would stop. For time is nothing but change. It is change that we perceive occurring all around us, not time. Put simply, time does not exist.
In this highly provocative volume, Barbour presents the basic evidence for a timeless universe, and shows why we still experience the world as intensely temporal. It is a book that strikes at the heart of modern physics. It casts doubt on Einstein's greatest contribution, the spacetime continuum, but also points to the solution of one of the great paradoxes of modern science, the chasm between classical and quantum physics. Indeed, Barbour argues that the holy grail of physicists--the unification of Einstein's general relativity with quantum mechanics--may well spell the end of time.
Barbour writes with remarkable clarity as he ranges from the ancient philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides, through the giants of science Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, to the work of the contemporary physicists John Wheeler, Roger Penrose, and Steven Hawking. Along the way he treats us to enticing glimpses of some of the mysteries of the universe, and presents intriguing ideas about multiple worlds, time travel, immortality, and, above all, the illusion of motion.
The End of Time is a vibrantly written and revolutionary book. It turns our understanding of reality inside-out.

Confusing the beginner, dissapointing the specialist **
I would like to know in person Julian Barbour. His narrative is very good, and he definetively motivates the interested reader. However, my impression is that he took good care of the first chapters of "The end of time", whereas the last part of the book dedicated to quantum gravity and DeWitt equation was written quite fast and without care. The beginner get confused. And if you are a physicist, or engineer with some knowledge of modern physics, you cannot grasp the essence. It is too qualitative. It would be interesting if any of these guys that claim to understand relativity and field theory target a book to a regular exact science professional. Nevertheless, I recommend the book to the reader interested in physics; it is motivating.

Confusing the beginner, dissapointing the specialist **

I would like to know in person Julian Barbour. His narrative is very good, and he definetively motivates the interested reader. However, my impression is that he took good care of the first chapters of "The end of time", whereas the last part of the book dedicated to quantum gravity and DeWitt equation was written quite fast and without care.
The beginner get confused. And if you are a physicist, or engineer with some knowledge of modern physics, you cannot grasp the essence. It is too qualitative.
It would be interesting if any of these guys that claim to understand relativity and field theory target a book to a regular exact science professional.
Nevertheless, I recommend the book to the reader interested in physics; it is motivating.

An interesting way to deal with time asymetery ****
I find many of the reviews useful and well considered but there are a number where it is obvious that the reviewer either didn't read the book or didn't understand it. Today there are two major schools of physics; quantum theory and relativity. In quantum mechanics space and time must exist on their own. One example is the neutrino. In the standard model (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model) there are the electron, muon and tau neutrinos. For years physicists have tried to study the sun by the neutrinos it emits but there were way fewer than predicted. Last year that problem finally got resolved by the discovery that neutrinos act much more like waves than expected. They change from electron to muon to tau depending on the phase of the wave instead of staying electron as theory predicted. To do this space and time must exist separate from the neutrinos. In General Relativity time and space dimensions only exist as metrics--that is to the extent that they measure relationships between things; be the things sub atomic particles or galaxies. They have no independent existence. This dichotomy is why when physicists try to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity they come with silliness like particles traveling backward in time from the edge of the universe. (This to try to reconcile Stephen Hawking's application of quantum mechanics to black holes and finding that they radiate mass to eliminate spin and to decrease their mass.) The author takes on the one real remaining problem with time and that is time asymmetry. IMHO the explanation he gives is a valid one although conceptually difficult and not again IMHO complete. I could wish that Feynman had addressed the topic as he had a excellent talent for getting complex concepts across. But he refused to have his views on time attributed to him or have them published. Considering the beating Fred Hoyle took over "Symmetric Electrodynamics in Arrow of time Cosmology" he was probably right. Overall this is an interesting book and a good read although hard going conceptually. Luckily the math is simple trig.

An interesting way to deal with time asymetery ****

I find many of the reviews useful and well considered but there are a number where it is obvious that the reviewer either didn't read the book or didn't understand it.

Today there are two major schools of physics; quantum theory and relativity. In quantum mechanics space and time must exist on their own. One example is the neutrino. In the standard model (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model) there are the electron, muon and tau neutrinos. For years physicists have tried to study the sun by the neutrinos it emits but there were way fewer than predicted. Last year that problem finally got resolved by the discovery that neutrinos act much more like waves than expected. They change from electron to muon to tau depending on the phase of the wave instead of staying electron as theory predicted. To do this space and time must exist separate from the neutrinos.

In General Relativity time and space dimensions only exist as metrics--that is to the extent that they measure relationships between things; be the things sub atomic particles or galaxies. They have no independent existence.

This dichotomy is why when physicists try to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity they come with silliness like particles traveling backward in time from the edge of the universe. (This to try to reconcile Stephen Hawking's application of quantum mechanics to black holes and finding that they radiate mass to eliminate spin and to decrease their mass.)

The author takes on the one real remaining problem with time and that is time asymmetry. IMHO the explanation he gives is a valid one although conceptually difficult and not again IMHO complete. I could wish that Feynman had addressed the topic as he had a excellent talent for getting complex concepts across. But he refused to have his views on time attributed to him or have them published. Considering the beating Fred Hoyle took over "Symmetric Electrodynamics in Arrow of time Cosmology" he was probably right.

Overall this is an interesting book and a good read although hard going conceptually. Luckily the math is simple trig.

We are all synchronous dead+alive Schrodingers ****
This book, which is flawed & a bit messy, is a fascinating mind-game about what happens if we nix Time or rather Time directionality. We get time-stop-photography wave-function "manifolds", eigenstates, machine-thought, reductio ad absurdum. Humans see at 70 frames/second, so, no chance of us handling light-speed + quantum, unless we get implants. I like Barbour's Platonia analogy of "quantum stasis" (P.305). Also his Zen-like Gaussian "becoming-ness". Time is a self-referential human artifice (Leibnitz). To explain Barbour's dogmatic idea of illusion, he posits that the stasis-Platonia is 'fixed' like the 3D turntable of Manhattan in Lauryn Hill's 'Everything is everything". Except the turntable is quantum-flux static. There can be no real Alpha point or Omega point, so one assumes the Big Bang was an illusion. Quantum particles do not obey distance or time & are 5th dimensional. In reality, all 'snapshots' are synchronous. Hence, we and all things that ever were, are alive and dead at the same time in the ETERNAL NOW. Just with "Platonian" separations. Heisenberg's dE * dt > h means time is subordinated to energy flow. How we "see" a movie (film strip) is because of the film strip's movement (energy) creating a forward sequence. Time-v-energy is determined by E = mc2 so that the 'now' of different objects is different. One needs a grasp of Mach's principles here. If absolute time is DEAD, it means revising all previous metaphysics. Also "time travel" becomes a whole different prospect, & curious questions then arise. I don't think Barbour has anything like the total picture, but he's dipping into a Pandora's Box of quantum weirdness. An open mind is categorically required for this stuff.

We are all synchronous dead+alive Schrodingers ****

This book, which is flawed & a bit messy, is a fascinating mind-game about what happens if we nix Time or rather Time directionality. We get time-stop-photography wave-function "manifolds", eigenstates, machine-thought, reductio ad absurdum. Humans see at 70 frames/second, so, no chance of us handling light-speed + quantum, unless we get implants.
I like Barbour's Platonia analogy of "quantum stasis" (P.305). Also his Zen-like Gaussian "becoming-ness". Time is a self-referential human artifice (Leibnitz). To explain Barbour's dogmatic idea of illusion, he posits that the stasis-Platonia is 'fixed' like the 3D turntable of Manhattan in Lauryn Hill's 'Everything is everything". Except the turntable is quantum-flux static. There can be no real Alpha point or Omega point, so one assumes the Big Bang was an illusion. Quantum particles do not obey distance or time & are 5th dimensional. In reality, all 'snapshots' are synchronous. Hence, we and all things that ever were, are alive and dead at the same time in the ETERNAL NOW. Just with "Platonian" separations.
Heisenberg's dE * dt > h means time is subordinated to energy flow. How we "see" a movie (film strip) is because of the film strip's movement (energy) creating a forward sequence. Time-v-energy is determined by E = mc2 so that the 'now' of different objects is different. One needs a grasp of Mach's principles here.
If absolute time is DEAD, it means revising all previous metaphysics.
Also "time travel" becomes a whole different prospect, & curious questions then arise. I don't think Barbour has anything like the total picture, but he's dipping into a Pandora's Box of quantum weirdness. An open mind is categorically required for this stuff.

Just an illusion? ****
Barbour's thesis is that time is an illusion, and doesn't really exist. According to Barbour, the universe is a timeless thing existing in configuration space; it doesn't "move through time," but rather exists as an infinitely dimensioned manifold (my word, not his, and I may not have accurately captured his meaning) in configuration space, where each point on the manifold represents the universe in a unique configuration. Many of the key concepts in this timeless universe were developed by earlier scientists, particularly Mach. Indeed, one of the benefits of reading this book is the many historical highlights and anecdotes provided by the author. Even if you don't subscribe to his timeless universe hypothesis, the books background material in Newtonian dynamics, special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics makes it worth reading. The first part of the book lays out general concepts, including the notion of configuration space. I particularly liked Barbour's method of using three points (a "universe" with just three points) as a metaphor for the timeless universe he imagines. In this simplified three-point universe one can define a history as just a path through configuration space - thus eliminating the need for a time variable (at least as far as describing a history is concerned, anyway). One of the traps in both reading and writing this book is that the concept of time is so permanently ingrained into our minds that it seems impossible to discuss the issue without recourse to phraseology pregnant with the very thing (time) that Barbour says doesn't exist. His wording is literally dripping with time-impregnated words as he describes a timeless world. He understands, even apologizes for the problem - but it persists and was a source of distraction and confusion for me throughout the book. I think the author does a better job of showing how to eliminate time (or at least think in terms of a timeless universe) within the context of Newtonian dynamics, than in a relativistic and quantum universe. The explanations from an Newtonian point of view are pretty straight forward, but as he progresses through special and general relativity, and on to quantum dynamics, the picture - and figures - become more sparse and (it seems) more dependent on speculation. At an intuitive and philosophical level I find myself largely in agreement with Barbour. There's something weird about time. It doesn't quite fit. I've often caught myself toying with the notion that it's an illusion. On the other hand, we can measure it, and all our measurements seem to be consistent. It's hard to see how we can measure a second so precisely if it's just an illusion. On another level I'm almost inclined to think the whole thing is based on semantics. After all, if someone told me that pain is an illusion - that it's really just electrical impulses transmitted to my brain - I'd reply that that's an explanation of what pain is, not an argument that it doesn't exist. Similarly, the universe may exist in timeless configuration space, but my consciousness certainly doesn't. Maybe what we mistook for the universe (and us) moving through time is really just us - our consciousness - moving through configuration space. We mistake our travel through configuration space as movement through time the same way someone floating down a river might mistakenly think the trees are moving past them, and they are just standing still. In fact, I wonder if that might be a characteristic of consciousness - something that moves through configuration space - and perhaps the "laws" of the universe look the way they do because our consciousness is constrained, by virtue of its existence, to travel through configuration space along histories (paths in configuration space) that have certain characteristics (increasing entropy, for example). That's just speculation, of course, but that's what a lot of Barbour's book is, too; a lot of speculation. Not that that's particularly bad, it's just that, in the end, there's nothing really testable here to evaluate.

Just an illusion? ****

Barbour's thesis is that time is an illusion, and doesn't really exist. According to Barbour, the universe is a timeless thing existing in configuration space; it doesn't "move through time," but rather exists as an infinitely dimensioned manifold (my word, not his, and I may not have accurately captured his meaning) in configuration space, where each point on the manifold represents the universe in a unique configuration.

Many of the key concepts in this timeless universe were developed by earlier scientists, particularly Mach. Indeed, one of the benefits of reading this book is the many historical highlights and anecdotes provided by the author. Even if you don't subscribe to his timeless universe hypothesis, the books background material in Newtonian dynamics, special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics makes it worth reading.

The first part of the book lays out general concepts, including the notion of configuration space. I particularly liked Barbour's method of using three points (a "universe" with just three points) as a metaphor for the timeless universe he imagines. In this simplified three-point universe one can define a history as just a path through configuration space - thus eliminating the need for a time variable (at least as far as describing a history is concerned, anyway).

One of the traps in both reading and writing this book is that the concept of time is so permanently ingrained into our minds that it seems impossible to discuss the issue without recourse to phraseology pregnant with the very thing (time) that Barbour says doesn't exist. His wording is literally dripping with time-impregnated words as he describes a timeless world. He understands, even apologizes for the problem - but it persists and was a source of distraction and confusion for me throughout the book.

I think the author does a better job of showing how to eliminate time (or at least think in terms of a timeless universe) within the context of Newtonian dynamics, than in a relativistic and quantum universe. The explanations from an Newtonian point of view are pretty straight forward, but as he progresses through special and general relativity, and on to quantum dynamics, the picture - and figures - become more sparse and (it seems) more dependent on speculation.

At an intuitive and philosophical level I find myself largely in agreement with Barbour. There's something weird about time. It doesn't quite fit. I've often caught myself toying with the notion that it's an illusion. On the other hand, we can measure it, and all our measurements seem to be consistent. It's hard to see how we can measure a second so precisely if it's just an illusion.

On another level I'm almost inclined to think the whole thing is based on semantics. After all, if someone told me that pain is an illusion - that it's really just electrical impulses transmitted to my brain - I'd reply that that's an explanation of what pain is, not an argument that it doesn't exist. Similarly, the universe may exist in timeless configuration space, but my consciousness certainly doesn't. Maybe what we mistook for the universe (and us) moving through time is really just us - our consciousness - moving through configuration space. We mistake our travel through configuration space as movement through time the same way someone floating down a river might mistakenly think the trees are moving past them, and they are just standing still. In fact, I wonder if that might be a characteristic of consciousness - something that moves through configuration space - and perhaps the "laws" of the universe look the way they do because our consciousness is constrained, by virtue of its existence, to travel through configuration space along histories (paths in configuration space) that have certain characteristics (increasing entropy, for example).

That's just speculation, of course, but that's what a lot of Barbour's book is, too; a lot of speculation. Not that that's particularly bad, it's just that, in the end, there's nothing really testable here to evaluate.

Science Fiction Not Science **
I found this book rambling, difficult to understand, and not particularly well written. The main thesis that all that exists is NOW (see the other reviews for more detail) was not proven in the book and, as far as I can see, cannot be proven empirically (mathematical proof without experimental proof is not adequate). In my opinion this book's theories belong to the realm of science fiction. If you want to let your imagination roam, anything is possible. Maybe everything is an illusion. Maybe I am the only thing that exists in the universe. Maybe there are all sorts of simultaneous universes that are constantly breaking in on each other. Etcetera. If I tried hard enough, I could probably support each of these ideas with concepts from quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. I don't think it's unusual for theoretical physics to cross the line from science to conjecture: This book is in that tradition.

Science Fiction Not Science **

I found this book rambling, difficult to understand, and not particularly well written. The main thesis that all that exists is NOW (see the other reviews for more detail) was not proven in the book and, as far as I can see, cannot be proven empirically (mathematical proof without experimental proof is not adequate). In my opinion this book's theories belong to the realm of science fiction. If you want to let your imagination roam, anything is possible. Maybe everything is an illusion. Maybe I am the only thing that exists in the universe. Maybe there are all sorts of simultaneous universes that are constantly breaking in on each other. Etcetera. If I tried hard enough, I could probably support each of these ideas with concepts from quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity.

I don't think it's unusual for theoretical physics to cross the line from science to conjecture: This book is in that tradition.

Not suitable for the layman but some good deep thinking, ***
I may as well start by saying that I have a degree in Applied physics and I'm more exposed to this kind of thinking than the average reader. This book is more an excercise in deep thought than an enlightening read. I can't imagine anyone not finding some of the ideas and imaginings in this book hard to grasp unless they have a technical science background and are used to thinking in this manner. His overall view of time I disagree with but that doesn't mean I regret reading it. In fact I found it to be a very thought provoking book which is always a good thing. Because of the obscurity of the subject the author in no way really convinced me of his beliefs, since the arguments he puts forward are a mesh between his own eccentric thoughts about timelessness coupled with an underlying quantum mechanical structure to it. A process which would seem to be impossible to prove anyway. But still a eye-opening read. I'm giving it 3 stars because of the difficulty of understanding some of the material he puts across which I don't recommend for someone looking for a nice and easy interesting science read, the book is hard to get through compared to most popular science books. As a result of the awkward material presented I can't say that I found this book to be an exciting read either.

Not suitable for the layman but some good deep thinking, ***

I may as well start by saying that I have a degree in Applied physics and I'm more exposed to this kind of thinking than the average reader. This book is more an excercise in deep thought than an enlightening read.
I can't imagine anyone not finding some of the ideas and imaginings in this book hard to grasp unless they have a technical science background and are used to thinking in this manner. His overall view of time I disagree with but that doesn't mean I regret reading it. In fact I found it to be a very thought provoking book which is always a good thing.
Because of the obscurity of the subject the author in no way really convinced me of his beliefs, since the arguments he puts forward are a mesh between his own eccentric thoughts about timelessness coupled with an underlying quantum mechanical structure to it. A process which would seem to be impossible to prove anyway. But still a eye-opening read.
I'm giving it 3 stars because of the difficulty of understanding some of the material he puts across which I don't recommend for someone looking for a nice and easy interesting science read, the book is hard to get through compared to most popular science books.
As a result of the awkward material presented I can't say that I found this book to be an exciting read either.

Einsteins own view 'Time is a stubborn illusion' ****
I am reading this a present so apologies for writing a review before completeing this but it was irresistable. As readers currently may know Hawking had worked on the idea that time and space had no actual beigining because of quantum uncertainty when the universe was smaller than plancks length - so that the question of a beginning was not relevant. However Einstein had already gone a 'quantum leap further by saying "the concept of past present and future are an illusion and a stubborn one at that.....". Perhaps he was ahead of the game.Hence I was very interested in this book. I am looking forward to completeing this book as much of our confusion about the nature of reality is based upon our failure to confront issues about the nature of time and a healthy open minded study of this beguiling human perception is welcomed.

Einsteins own view 'Time is a stubborn illusion' ****

I am reading this a present so apologies for writing a review before completeing this but it was irresistable. As readers currently may know Hawking had worked on the idea that time and space had no actual beigining because of quantum uncertainty when the universe was smaller than plancks length - so that the question of a beginning was not relevant. However Einstein had already gone a 'quantum leap further by saying "the concept of past present and future are an illusion and a stubborn one at that.....". Perhaps he was ahead of the game.Hence I was very interested in this book. I am looking forward to completeing this book as much of our confusion about the nature of reality is based upon our failure to confront issues about the nature of time and a healthy open minded study of this beguiling human perception is welcomed.

Impossible theories **
Now don't get me wrong, I'm used to reading weird stuff. I try to keep an open mind as even the craziest sounding theory could turn out to be right and sometimes you can learn a lot about reading other people's views even if you don't agree with them. But believe me, the theory promoted in this book is the craziest I have yet come accross. The author says that our idea of time passing is a misperception of our brains. We are actually in a timeless universe, where all is still and unchanging. I really cannot see how a scientist can put forward such a theory for serious consideration. Although I struggled through the book, I could find nothing of any real interest, nor is there any possible practical application for such a theory if it could ever be tested/proved. All in all I think the author is just engaging in what I call an academic excerise, which is usually the preserve of philosphers. So unless you happen to like that sort of thing, I recommend you give the book a miss.

Impossible theories **

Now don't get me wrong, I'm used to reading weird stuff. I try to keep an open mind as even the craziest sounding theory could turn out to be right and sometimes you can learn a lot about reading other people's views even if you don't agree with them. But believe me, the theory promoted in this book is the craziest I have yet come accross.
The author says that our idea of time passing is a misperception of our brains. We are actually in a timeless universe, where all is still and unchanging.
I really cannot see how a scientist can put forward such a theory for serious consideration. Although I struggled through the book, I could find nothing of any real interest, nor is there any possible practical application for such a theory if it could ever be tested/proved. All in all I think the author is just engaging in what I call an academic excerise, which is usually the preserve of philosphers. So unless you happen to like that sort of thing, I recommend you give the book a miss.

An overwhelming feeling of so what **
I found the "End of Time" extremely disappointing particularly after reading the recommendations on the back of the book. I never knew Jon Turney, John Gribbin and John Barrow to all be so wrong. This book completely lacks any discussions of what a timeless universe implies, indeed it wasn't until the notes that it was clear what the author meant by it. The "End of Time" is full of pages of argument as to why there is no time, but it's done in a very dull way for the lay reader, and, as the email printed in the notes shows, his thesis has far too many holes to convince more conventional physicists. There was absolutely nothing on what timelessness actually means, no speculation at all (which as a previous reviewer noted may be because there's nothing to predict. A highly worthy but dull book. I shan't be keeping it on my shelf

An overwhelming feeling of so what **

I found the "End of Time" extremely disappointing particularly after reading the recommendations on the back of the book. I never knew Jon Turney, John Gribbin and John Barrow to all be so wrong. This book completely lacks any discussions of what a timeless universe implies, indeed it wasn't until the notes that it was clear what the author meant by it. The "End of Time" is full of pages of argument as to why there is no time, but it's done in a very dull way for the lay reader, and, as the email printed in the notes shows, his thesis has far too many holes to convince more conventional physicists. There was absolutely nothing on what timelessness actually means, no speculation at all (which as a previous reviewer noted may be because there's nothing to predict. A highly worthy but dull book. I shan't be keeping it on my shelf

Long and involved, but interesting ****
Humans find it quite easy to grasp the idea of spacial dimensions. This might be because we have eyes, and skin that can feel things. If a clock was conscious, would it find space to be the elusive dimension? The author starts from the premise that time is inherently elusive, and he seeks to resolve this by eliminating it entirely. Inevitably, the notorious dual-slit light interference experiment features centrally in the book, as it does in Professor Deutsch's studies. Both of these quantum physicists are drawn to the multiple worlds (multiverse) theory, in which a virtually infinite number of universes exist simultaneously, 'touching' and affecting each other through the interaction of electromagnetic particles and probabilities. This theory is not accepted by the majority of physicists. Barbour's book is not an easy read; the early parts are far too long, and the conclusions - and the resultant implications - are not really clear at all. Having read the book, I certainly find it easier to imagine the universe existing as a timeless present moment, with no past and no future. Whether this book is on the right track, or merely leading its readers up the garden path, only the 'future' will reveal.

Long and involved, but interesting ****

Humans find it quite easy to grasp the idea of spacial dimensions. This might be because we have eyes, and skin that can feel things. If a clock was conscious, would it find space to be the elusive dimension? The author starts from the premise that time is inherently elusive, and he seeks to resolve this by eliminating it entirely. Inevitably, the notorious dual-slit light interference experiment features centrally in the book, as it does in Professor Deutsch's studies. Both of these quantum physicists are drawn to the multiple worlds (multiverse) theory, in which a virtually infinite number of universes exist simultaneously, 'touching' and affecting each other through the interaction of electromagnetic particles and probabilities. This theory is not accepted by the majority of physicists. Barbour's book is not an easy read; the early parts are far too long, and the conclusions - and the resultant implications - are not really clear at all. Having read the book, I certainly find it easier to imagine the universe existing as a timeless present moment, with no past and no future. Whether this book is on the right track, or merely leading its readers up the garden path, only the 'future' will reveal.

The End of Time **
The essential idea from Julian Barbour's book is that the laws of physics can be formulated in such a way that time does not enter explicitly into the equations. If we accept this idea for the moment (and not all physicists do), the question then becomes: is making time disappear in this way just a mathematical trick, or does it lead to better physics? Barbour has taken on an especially difficult task in trying to explain these esoteric concepts in a work of popular science. The book doesn't succeed, in my view, and the most I can do here is give him credit for trying. My negative review does not reflect any disagreement with his ideas - it is up to his peers in physics, not me, to decide whether he is on to something or not. I just don't think he's succeeded in putting his ideas across to a general audience. The book is so wordy, and its exposition so plodding and foggy and vague, that it is hard to imagine that most people would get much out of it. I really don't like to write negative reviews, but sometimes they can be useful in steering readers away from books that are likely to frustrate and turn them off. Barbour is a respected physicist, an original thinker, and an interesting person, whose life trajectory has taken him far from the typical academic career. But I really hope he'll take on a co-writer, somebody who knows how to write clearly and informatively about popular science, on his next book.

The End of Time **

The essential idea from Julian Barbour's book is that the laws of physics can be formulated in such a way that time does not enter explicitly into the equations. If we accept this idea for the moment (and not all physicists do), the question then becomes: is making time disappear in this way just a mathematical trick, or does it lead to better physics?

Barbour has taken on an especially difficult task in trying to explain these esoteric concepts in a work of popular science. The book doesn't succeed, in my view, and the most I can do here is give him credit for trying. My negative review does not reflect any disagreement with his ideas - it is up to his peers in physics, not me, to decide whether he is on to something or not. I just don't think he's succeeded in putting his ideas across to a general audience. The book is so wordy, and its exposition so plodding and foggy and vague, that it is hard to imagine that most people would get much out of it.

I really don't like to write negative reviews, but sometimes they can be useful in steering readers away from books that are likely to frustrate and turn them off. Barbour is a respected physicist, an original thinker, and an interesting person, whose life trajectory has taken him far from the typical academic career. But I really hope he'll take on a co-writer, somebody who knows how to write clearly and informatively about popular science, on his next book.

A little too arcane for the average reader ***
Boy, talk about a difficult book to get through. I've no doubt that Mr. Barbour knows what he's talking about, but I have to admit that I got thoroughly lost on more than one occasion. Just when I thought I had the thread of his argument pinned down, he embarked on a new more arcane path, and I was lost again. I have to admit I am not really a math-physics type person, but I do read a fair amount of literature for amateurs on the topic of theoretical physics, and time is one of those subjects that intrigues me the most. I'm not quite sure for whom the book is intended either, because although it lost me as a neophyte, I can't imagine that it would hold the attention of someone well grounded and/or professionally involved in physics; it has too many words and too few mathematical formulae. In all though, I found the concept of time as a, more or less, static collection of instants all shuffled together like playing cards or like the frames of a 35mm film strip a provocative one. I just can't help feeling, though, that there is something significant missing in the author's argument. I'm sure he would insist that it is just the overwhelming psychological experience of time "flowing" that is throwing me off, but when I think of his perspective on time and history, I find the only way it makes sense is if I stand outside of the system to see how it might work. I find it difficult to see how the information about past experiences can be passed on to my memory in any given instant without some sort of connection between all the instants of which "I" am a part. That however would make consciousness a unique and special entity, which I find difficult to accept. Although consciousness has sometimes been claimed to be a factor in generating Newtonian reality from quantum "observations," I think there has been sufficient discussion that refutes it. Again, I found the book way over my head, but I hope to reread it on another occasion with hope of achieving better understanding. Definitely not a book to start with if you're not heavily into physics.

A little too arcane for the average reader ***

Boy, talk about a difficult book to get through. I've no doubt that Mr. Barbour knows what he's talking about, but I have to admit that I got thoroughly lost on more than one occasion. Just when I thought I had the thread of his argument pinned down, he embarked on a new more arcane path, and I was lost again. I have to admit I am not really a math-physics type person, but I do read a fair amount of literature for amateurs on the topic of theoretical physics, and time is one of those subjects that intrigues me the most. I'm not quite sure for whom the book is intended either, because although it lost me as a neophyte, I can't imagine that it would hold the attention of someone well grounded and/or professionally involved in physics; it has too many words and too few mathematical formulae. In all though, I found the concept of time as a, more or less, static collection of instants all shuffled together like playing cards or like the frames of a 35mm film strip a provocative one. I just can't help feeling, though, that there is something significant missing in the author's argument. I'm sure he would insist that it is just the overwhelming psychological experience of time "flowing" that is throwing me off, but when I think of his perspective on time and history, I find the only way it makes sense is if I stand outside of the system to see how it might work. I find it difficult to see how the information about past experiences can be passed on to my memory in any given instant without some sort of connection between all the instants of which "I" am a part. That however would make consciousness a unique and special entity, which I find difficult to accept. Although consciousness has sometimes been claimed to be a factor in generating Newtonian reality from quantum "observations," I think there has been sufficient discussion that refutes it. Again, I found the book way over my head, but I hope to reread it on another occasion with hope of achieving better understanding. Definitely not a book to start with if you're not heavily into physics.

I Am Not Here *****
In our limited fashion we all approach this from the realm of existence. Platonia is only an architectural representation of a nonexistence. I would like mr. barbour to take his theory to the next level. Hello, Mr. Barbour? Are you out there? That is a rhetorical question...of course you're not.

I Am Not Here *****

In our limited fashion we all approach this from the realm of existence. Platonia is only an architectural representation of a nonexistence. I would like mr. barbour to take his theory to the next level. Hello, Mr. Barbour? Are you out there? That is a rhetorical question...of course you're not.

Provocative but Flawed ***
Oddly, the most succinct and lucid statement of Barbour's theory comes, not from him, but from a reader whose email he quotes in the footnotes at the end of the book: "All moments are simultaneous ... My conscious mind feeds them to me in a linear sequence strung out with a bunch of other moments in an illusion of a continuous flow of action." (p. 340, trade paperback edition) Barbour comments that this reader's views are "often very close to my own position." I see two problems here. First, the hypothesis seems essentially solipsistic - it's not clear if it can ever be tested, proved, or disproved. Second, how can "my conscious mind feed these moments to me" in a world of total stasis, a world where everything is frozen and motionless? Either consciousness itself is exempt from the timelessness of the rest of the system (but Barbour seems to think it isn't) or consciousness, being part of a timeless reality, is frozen and unable to engage in any processes - including the process of "feeding" moments to me. In other words, if time is an illusion created by a filmstrip of single frames being run in our heads, then what is running the movie, and how can the movie run at all when nothing can move? The theory seems to raise more questions than it answers. Still, questions are always valuable, so - three stars!

Provocative but Flawed ***

Oddly, the most succinct and lucid statement of Barbour's theory comes, not from him, but from a reader whose email he quotes in the footnotes at the end of the book: "All moments are simultaneous ... My conscious mind feeds them to me in a linear sequence strung out with a bunch of other moments in an illusion of a continuous flow of action." (p. 340, trade paperback edition) Barbour comments that this reader's views are "often very close to my own position."

I see two problems here. First, the hypothesis seems essentially solipsistic - it's not clear if it can ever be tested, proved, or disproved. Second, how can "my conscious mind feed these moments to me" in a world of total stasis, a world where everything is frozen and motionless? Either consciousness itself is exempt from the timelessness of the rest of the system (but Barbour seems to think it isn't) or consciousness, being part of a timeless reality, is frozen and unable to engage in any processes - including the process of "feeding" moments to me. In other words, if time is an illusion created by a filmstrip of single frames being run in our heads, then what is running the movie, and how can the movie run at all when nothing can move?

The theory seems to raise more questions than it answers. Still, questions are always valuable, so - three stars!

Complex concept but I had no problem following conceptually *****
Does time really exist? What if time were actually an illusion? If time did not really exist them quantum physics and classical physics could be united into a unified theory. On the other hand, if time does not exist then what are we to make of theories such as a space-time continuum? In this text Julian Barbour clearly analyses the concept of time and puts forth the current evidence for its non-existence. The arguments are compelling, the logic strong, and the results convincing - or at least it is convincing enough to consider it as a real possibility. Julian Barbour is a theoretical physicist who takes this complex and counter-intuitive concept and puts it forth in layman's terms. This is a highly recommended book for anyone interested in theoretical physics and how it is changing our view of our world. "The End of Time" is sure to become an authoritative reference for any discussion on the existence of time.

Complex concept but I had no problem following conceptually *****

Does time really exist? What if time were actually an illusion? If time did not really exist them quantum physics and classical physics could be united into a unified theory. On the other hand, if time does not exist then what are we to make of theories such as a space-time continuum? In this text Julian Barbour clearly analyses the concept of time and puts forth the current evidence for its non-existence. The arguments are compelling, the logic strong, and the results convincing - or at least it is convincing enough to consider it as a real possibility. Julian Barbour is a theoretical physicist who takes this complex and counter-intuitive concept and puts it forth in layman's terms. This is a highly recommended book for anyone interested in theoretical physics and how it is changing our view of our world. "The End of Time" is sure to become an authoritative reference for any discussion on the existence of time.