The Grand Design

Written by Leonard Mlodinow and Stephen Hawking

Narrated by Steve West

In the last thirty years of his life Albert Einstein searched for a unified theory - a theory which could describe all the forces of nature in a single framework. But the time was not right for such a discovery in Einstein's day.

Neither was the time right when, in 1988, Professor Stephen Hawking wrote A Brief History of Time in which he took us on a journey through classical physics, Einstein's theory of relativity, quantum physics and string theory in order to explain the universe that we live in. He concluded, like Einstein, that science may soon arrive at the long sought after 'Theory of Everything'.

In this ground-breaking new work, Professor Hawking and renowned science writer Leonard Mlodinow have drawn on forty years of Hawking's own research and a recent series of extraordinary astronomical observations and theoretical breakthroughs to reveal an original and controversial theory. They convincingly argue that scientific obsession with formulating a single new model may be misplaced, and that, instead, by synthesising existing theories we may discover the key to finally understanding the universe's deepest mysteries.

Written with the clarity and lively style for which Hawking is famous, The Grand Design is an account of Hawking's quest to fuse these different strands of scientific theory. It examines the differences between past and future, explains the nature of reality and asks an all-important question: How far can we go in our search for understanding and knowledge?

• Language: English
• Publisher: Random House UK Audio
• Release date: Sep 9, 2010
• ISBN: 9781407003290

Reviews for The Grand Design

[scorched_earth · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

As a layperson, this book was incredibly interesting and relatively easy to comprehend and follow. However, the lay reader will benefit from multiple readings of the book; or, in the very least, select portions of the text. The hardcover edition is incredibly nice, with dozens of glossy images. The images help to communicate the ideas pitched in the book. I will revisit this book in the future.

[antao-3 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

(Original Review, 2010)At university, after spending thousands on tuition, I then had to spend a lot, over 3 years, on books for my courses. More than half were written by the very professors that were teaching me. Quite frankly, it's a giant scam. Those professors have already been paid for the first material through their salaries. Why should we have to pay them again for copies of their pretty badly written books? Yes, these books are very expensive, and many don't deserve to be read. A few years ago, I was asked to review a chapter in a research text. The friend who sent me the invite told me over a drink that I was the third person asked, and would I please go easy on the papers. I said yes. I'd do it (slow week and was curious). I wasn't prepared for just how poor the section was. Even simple things, such as the chapter discussing at great length a diagram that wasn't included in the manuscript. So, after going easy, I sent two pages of corrections stating they must be made or the chapter was not suitable for publication. After a couple of months I received an email asking for my address so they could send me a thank you copy. No mention of any edits being made. Still not received a copy of the book...It doesn't matter if it gets bought, as long as you have your name as an author next to a proper ISBN number then you are a published author and with your PhD can get in for the university interviews...along with your list of peer reviewed journal articles too of course...Surely the point of being an academic is to be published well, stocked in university libraries, cited by students and fellow academics, and of course be paid for it. Not everyone can be Leonard Mlodinow (whose screen work is quite different to his academic work).Bottom-line: Is hysterical publication caused by an epidemic of vanity? Don't be ridiculous. It is how the institutions that employ us measure our performance and the penalties for non-performance are severe. This is the only reason these publishers can do what they do. All over the world thousands of talented academics are wasting their time writing for non-existent readers: it is completely insane.

[ashleytylerjohn · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I keep reading books like this in the hopes that one day I will grasp the subject, but so far, no such luck. (I get bits and pieces, but I can't picture folded-up space, or separated particles with apparent ESP, etc.)

I liked the explanation of how models are essentially reality (unless I misunderstood that), but I wished that they had discussed less (I started to tune out / get dizzy by 2/3 through) but had gone into greater detail about what they were discussing.

For instance, I'm quite keen on the idea of multiple universes, but can there really be an infinity of them, can every possible universe possibly exist? It doesn't seem logical. I mean, imagine a world that's identical to ours, except in our world Hamilton wasn't a big success. But how could that be? If everything were identical, then all the people who see Hamilton would be the same ones in both worlds, with the same likes and dislikes, so they'd, on the whole, really like it. If they didn't, then something must have differed prior to that. Or in a simpler case, there's no universe that's just like ours but where elephants if they choose to can float. Can there be? I really don't get it.

Oh well. Back to philosophy maybe, as physics and I, no matter how hard I try, are not a good fit!

(Note: 5 stars = rare and amazing, 4 = quite good book, 3 = a decent read, 2 = disappointing, 1 = awful, just awful. There are a lot of 4s and 3s in the world!)

[razinha-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Nice, easy read...certainly not nearly as controversial as the press made it out to be when it was published. Hawking and Mlodinow get bashed for oversimplifying, but I think that translating cosmology to be accessible to the masses is admirable. If you want more math or science, those books are out there. If you want a general overview that you can lend your friends, this serves well.

I like their reference to David Hume, silencing the "but how do we know what is real?" waste of time crowd: although we have no rational grounds for believing in an objective reality, we also have no choice but to act as if it is true.

We really don't have much choice but to act as if what we perceive is real...we are macroscopic beings and travel at far less than relativistic speeds, so the classic equations govern.

[haidji-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Stephen W. Hawking is a brilliant scientist and a great writer.You do not need to be an scientist to understand this book.The book is is well written, clear and comprehensive.This book makes me want to study physics.It was a fascinating read.

[pdepena · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Deep, far-out concepts. Physics.

[yakov.perelman · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This books goes to my virtual list: "Books I wish I had read before I started studying my Physics Degree", so far only some books from MIR Publisher had done it to this list. It is simply superb, they way Hawking introduces some of the most complex concepts of Physics is amazing. Anyway this book is definitely NOT for the intermediate science lover, you will need some background or lots of patience, but still in hardly 200 pages Hawking and Mlodinow present very clearly the sate of the art of Physics and Science in one of its last frontiers. Great great book.

[bell7_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow describe our current understanding of physics - general and special relativity, gravity, quantum theory, Feynman's sum over histories - in a relatively brief (under 200 pages) and accessible way for the layman, using tons of visuals and often humorous analogies.I never took high school physics or calculus so while I can't understand the math, I occasionally read science books intended for folks like me that simply blow my mind with what we know and don't know about the universe we live in. The first half of the book was pretty basic and covered ground I already knew from other books I've read. Much of the book describes what we know of "the grand design" of the universe, both arguing for a theory or network of theories ("M-theory") that will one day better describe our universe and that we could mathematically and scientifically come up with a theory that will not have a need for a designer, that is God. Their theory, from what I understand - and this was the part that got a little dicey for me, I admit - argues that much like the earth is not the center of the universe nor even a particularly unique planet orbiting a star, so our universe may end up being only one of millions upon millions of universes that would all be spontaneously created and simultaneously operate with different laws of nature. I'm not sure that would ever personally satisfy me with how something could come from nothing - and as I said, I'm not conversant in the math that models this - but I enjoy stretching my brain cells nonetheless.

[h_d_3 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This was waaaay more accessible than I thought it would be. I remember the embolism I had trying to read A Brief History of Time years ago (still need to finish that), so it was quite a pleasant surprise to be able to read this and not cry (the extent of my scientific knowledge is that Caesium does groovy things in a bowl of water and makes science teachers nervous when children instantly become incredibly feral on noticing this wonderful attribute). Also, this was a very short and quick read, so I wonder if I actually read it at all...

I suppose, the gist of it is that the universe is filled with many things that can't be seen, are hard to measure and might not actually exist at all, but in order to theorise about our universe, we need to believe they are there and can be found wherever they are hiding...

Maybe I was reading a book on another subject...

In any case, it's a small mind that isn't completely blown away by the fact that we exist at all, for what seems to be no real reason. Somewhere a spark was lit, a chain reaction happened and like mold on an orange, here we are. It's as amazing as it is terrifying. Mostly amazing.

[tulsatv · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Liked it right up until the last few pages, when the authors quickly wrapped up with an unsupported assertion that M-theory explains it all. Huh?

[michaelbartley · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

a very readable book about the philosophy of science

[angela9vaughn · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This book was nothing like the hype it brought. I enjoyed the book, but as a whole the best parts were the first couple of chapters and the last couple of chapters.

[mayaarb · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

A lot of circular logic and simplistic language really made me feel Mr. Hawking just doesn't think his readers are smart enough to understand.

[drbrewhaha · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A concise and fairly well-written summary of the current state of the search for a concise theory of everything. Hawking does a good job during the first 2/3 of the book walking the reader along the path of complex theories and providing well-written examples. However, I felt like during the last 1/3 of the book, where he was getting to the crux of his exposition, that he got tired of writing and just wanted to finish it up so he stopped trying to make things understandable. All-in-all a decent book to get someone started on the path of the grand theories of the universe.

[moonimal · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Yuck. I loved Hawking's 'Brief History of Time', but I found this one thin (content-wise) and inconclusive. To call it the Grand Design, and then simply present work that says "there's lots of theories that all together form a cool picture" is disappointing. I realize I'm probably not the audience for this book, as I've read a LOT of popular science books, and I love this stuff, so maybe I should relax into this.If you've never read Hawking, or you don't have other pop physics books on your shelf, this would be a good read.

[kareldhuyvetters · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

An accessible survey of the present state of the universe. A must.

[phyrexicaid · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Book was too short, could have used much more info. Very interesting nonetheless, got me thinking about my masters again

[glennbell_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Interesting mixture of science and conjecture. Frankly, I came away a bit disappointed. Maybe I have read too many similar books. It did not seem to offer anything particularly new.

[niecierpek · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The book attempts to explain what scientists think are the laws of universe, and in particular what the M theory is. The M theory is an attempt at a theory of 'everything' meaning a theory fit to unify laws governing both subatomic particles, energy fields and big bodies, so far an unattainable feat for physicists. It's based on superstring theory and unifies quantum mechanics, general and special theory of relativity, and supports the view that our universe is a part of multiverse- an infinite collection of universes like ours. The book itself is extremely readable, clear and to the point peppered with Hawking signature quirky humour. It has an very clear explanation of quantum mechanics laws and why god is not needed in the creation of the universe.

[auntmarge64 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is one of those books general readers use to give themselves a glimpse of how great minds perceive reality. It's not too long, has humor and easy-to-understand illustrations, and creeps closer and closer to the author's conclusion so gently that as each chapter ends you realize you may not understand the science all that well, but the argument makes sense, at least within it's own logic, and you can actually follow the line of thought. Here Hawking explains his reasoning for promoting M-theory as a candidate for the "Theory of Everything". Using a lucid history of scientific theory, he traces the work of Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman and others to lead readers out of their familiar paths of understanding and into theories which to our senses seem impossible. Even as readers might be thinking, OK, I've lost the thread, Hawking changes tactics enough to let the reader pause and be ready to go on with just enough comprehension to keep up. It's quite a feat, I think, for him to be able to know what mere mortals (and I'm not being sarcastic here) can tolerate and understand in order for him to not only give us some idea what he's talking about but to get us to trust that it's worth continuing to read.

[rybie2 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time reportedly was one of the most purchased, most displayed, and least read scientific books of the late 1980s. Although the book contained no mathematics and minimal technical vocabulary, many readers found its concepts difficult to comprehend. (In fact, none other than a spokesman for the Pope mistakenly proclaimed that it demonstrated the necessity for a belief in God as the divine entity that began the universe). The Grand Design succeeds where that book arguably did not, and what's more, brings to a general readership the stunning implications of contemporary physics and cosmology. The book is clearly written, contains helpful diagrams, and enough corny humor to keep things light. Any difficulties in comprehension reflect the fact that the concepts themselves are counter-intuitive and far from easy to grasp. The universe turns out to be a very strange place indeed; and in fact, if the authors are correct, ours is but one of an infinite number of universes, in which every conceivable event has happened. Given that The Grand Design removes the necessity for a divine creator, one may feel compelled to ask: what percentage of the infinite number of universes would include a god or gods? And then, an unrelated question. With an infinite number of universes (many of which apparently lasted no more than a few seconds), do we not have a process of natural selection operating on a cosmic scale, such that our universe exists because it has succeeded where others have failed? Wouldn't it be both funny and ironic if our universe's persistence for the past 13.7 billion years (just like our presence on this small planet in a tiny solar system) reflects a form of cosmic evolution and natural selection? The Grand Design is a book that raises as many questions as it answers. It is a book that deserves to be read and understood, and if its radical implications take a while to sink in, we can take heart in the likelihood that our particular universe seems unlikely to disappear anytime soon. So far, at least, we're one of the lucky ones.

[daniel5estes · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow mostly succeeds at being accessible to the average reader given the academic subject matter. Still, it was hard to wrap my mind around some of the concepts. The examples were clear, but like physics itself, understanding them often required thinking in multiple dimensions.This book, as others like it, is a welcomed continual plea to bring scientific thinking to the greater public. The world surprisingly still leans heavily on superstition in trying to make sense of this mysterious space called the universe.

[gbsallery · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The clearest summary of Hawking's current thinking that I have yet encountered. Whilst I miss some of the detail presented in, for example, A Brief History of Time, this book is a more concise summary which covers a little more of the M-Theory material (without ever, quite, explaining what M-Theory is - but this is true of all summaries I have so far encountered). Lavishly illustrated, and with his usual dry humour, this book is highly readable and also raises some interesting questions. Well worth a read.

[deaconbernie · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

It is exciting to read these books about the means scientists use to explain the universe and its beginnings. It is very disappointing to read of scientists who waste time trying to exclude God from the equation. If scientists can get to the point where they can absolutely explain the beginning with no input from God then they are welcome to do so. The authors here admit that every theory yet has revealed yet more things we don't know than things we do know. Yet, these authors expect us to accept, as they apparently do, one more theory, the M-theory, will explain everything. Why not just investigate, test and re-test, and investigate, and leave God alone?

[drifter83 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This was a surprisingly quick read considering the subject matter is the theory of...everything. I enjoyed reading it, and would definitely recommend it to anyone interested, but cannot rate it higher than 3 stars (or maybe 3 1/2) because only about 5% of the material felt new. I am no scientist, but have read a few similar books (including others by Hawking, Barry Parker, Brian Greene, etc). Only the discussion of the distortion of time at the beginning of the universe (and the subsequent conclusions regarding God) seemed particularly novel.That said, this was a very clear and concise summary of much of the rest of the literature on these various topics (string theory, quantum physics, unified theories, etc). The writing is enjoyable and easy to follow, and the chapters are narrative and accessible. There are multiple attempts at humor, which are well-intentioned if overly contrived.My biggest criticisms are also some of the book's greatest strengths (depending on the reader) - there is almost no science, beyond some very basic descriptions and analogies. I would have liked for this to expand a bit on some of the earlier books, but as I recall (I haven't read any in years), Hawking's other books actually go more in depth into these various phenomena.This is a good introduction (or refresher) on the world of theoretical physics, but it is not much more.

[stellarexplorer · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

That Hawking describes contemporary physics in an authoritative voice should surprise no one. That he considers himself an expert on philosophy as well was less expected. The attitude is made manifest on the first page: "Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge".Such outrageous condescension would be rude effrontery were it not so naive. There is no evidence in the text that Hawking and Mlodinow have based their conclusion on even a cursory familiarity with another academic discipline. And yet they are willing to proclaim one discipline dead, supplanted by their own. And in a bizarre twist, it turns out that they strive ultimately to draw philosophical conclusions in this book rather than scientific ones.Hawking and Mlodinow's grand design is incoherent, biased and offensive.

[alanjlevine · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow conclude that science now serves man in the role formerly played by philosophy and religion. They do this without acknowledging they now espouse a new philosophy and a new religion of sorts. Save that it's not really new. For as G.K. Chesterton pointed out, a materialist is a materialist is a materialist whether they live in the twelfth century or the twenty-first century. And so for a theist. The difference between now and then is today we have more data and more complicated theories with which to deal. Deny it though they might - surely they would - Hawking and Mlodinow are really neo-pantheists. They worship in the church of scientific materialism and on their altar is gravity. For the punch-line of The Grand Design is that the law of gravity makes an otherwise improbable universe inevitable. Gravity is a priori. But while they point out that the religionist is fairly asked whence the God they worship comes from, the scientists never even feel the need to ask themselves Who authored the law of gravity. The book itself is decent. It is well-written, concise, and beautifully illustrated. However, there is much in the substance of the science and theory that is unsatisfactory. In fairness, the only way it could be made complete in this respect while maintaining its readability were if the reader to go earn a doctorate in theoretical physics and then come back for a fuller treatment of the technical details of quantum mechanics and m-theory. But then, that would be a different, and much longer book. Read The Grand Design for a glancing view of the picture of creation which physics and cosmology have revealed to those smart enough to design the experiments, manipulate the math, and imagine the theories. But don't get your theology from the authors. Better to read George MacDonald, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Mother Theresa, and so on, for one's spiritual education. For while Hawking and Mlodinow may be brilliant scientists, they are mediocre atheists who believe they've evolved beyond God. In doing so, they've become mere pagans fetishizing not mountain spirits and wood demons, but rather gravity, m-theory, and all the universes they see in their equations.

[mitchellray · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The authors claim science can answer both the how and why questions concerning the behavior of the universe without the need to invoke a god. Hawking and Mlodinow explore the fascinating and counterintuitive world of quantum physics to make their point. They conclude that M-theory is the most promising candidate for the elusive theory of everything. This is actually not a single theory but a collection of theories with each describing a particular aspect of the universe. The authors write with wit, which makes for an enjoyable read. However, their main thesis is not clearly threaded throughout the book. This creates a disjointed narrative. The chapters do not seem to build upon each other to create a focused argument for their thesis. A nice read, but I often lost track of the main point of the book.

[ironmike_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

It is important that great thinkers write for a general audience. Einstein did it, and Hawking continues the tradition. Brian Greene is another who does; and so is Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking's co-author of The Grand Design. Others try, but their efforts soar above most of our pedestrian heads, for instance Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality. So I am most grateful for the efforts of writer-scientists like Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow who succeed where others do not.The book is not perfect. Every few pages one finds a lame cartoon. These cartoons are...well: lame. They are not amusing, and are not connected to the text. The illustrations are an improvement, but even here I pause and wonder. On page 54 there is an illustration of a glass of water with a straw in it. The illustration is very nice. I particularly like the red & white tablecloth upon which the glass rests. The note beneath the photo is this: "Refraction: Newton's model of light could explain why light bent when it passed from one medium to another, but it could not explain another phenomenon we now call Newton's Rings." Now, we almost all of us have seen a straw in a glass of water. Did we need to see another? Even with a particularly nice red and white table cloth? On the other hand, how many of us have seen "Newton's Rings?" Wouldn't it have been better to have shown the readers a photo of Newton's Rings? Especially when considering that on p.117 there are three additional photographs of straws in glasses of liquid, possibly cranberry juice, which illustrate "refraction" equally well?Well, perhaps I'm being too fussy. A bigger question is: does the book adequately answer the questions it sets out to answer? Does it explain "why there is something rather than nothing?" "Why do we exist?" "Why this particular set of laws and not some other?" I have read the book twice, and I am unsure. I have certainly had my thinking on these subjects stimulated. My brain is buzzing with possiblities. But I feel I need to know more.... which, after all, is not a bad thing.

[xox_2 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The Big Bang only explain what happened shortly after universe is form. Time does not exists before Big Bang, and M Theory is currently the only theory that is closest to explaining everything. Plus gravity exists to balance out the force require to create life. All these in a thin book is incrediable.