Celestine's Reviews > Hiding in the Mirror: The Quest for Alternate Realities, from Plato to String Theory

Hiding in the Mirror by Lawrence M. Krauss
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Oct 21, 11

Read from October 13 to 21, 2011

I actually didn't finished it, I've just given up, something I rarely do.

The problem with this book is that it pretends to be something it's not. I picked it up based on a summary that led me to believe this was a discussion of how the theme of parallel dimensions have been used in science fiction and fantasy literature for many years, with a bit of explanation of the physics behind the concept and why the authors of said literature have misunderstood the underlying physics. I expected it to be written in terms a layperson could understand.

Instead, it's an in-depth discussion of the history of the physics behind alternate dimensions, with very, very little discussion of literature at all. The non-science discussion is basically limited to an introduction in which the author explains how The Twilight Zone inspired him to become a physicists, and a few chapter-opening quotes (though most chapter-opening quotes are from physicists). Much of the discussion involves mathematical concepts that are indecipherable to someone like me, who considers math to be a particularly incomprehensible foreign language. When the author describes these concepts as metaphors, I understand the concepts better. However, Krauss does this far less than I expected.

Someone with a better background in math and/or physics and an interest in dimensions in space time would probably enjoy it better than I did.
1 like · likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Hiding in the Mirror.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-2 of 2) (2 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by Josh (new) - added it

Josh Steiner you 2 starred it because you didn't understand it was a science book?

Celestine Josh wrote: "you 2 starred it because you didn't understand it was a science book?"

No, I two starred the book because I didn't understand it was a history of science book, because the summary was misleading. There's a difference in the type of book I was lead to except, versus the type of book this actually is, which lead to my "it was okay" opinion.

back to top