Slickdeals is community-supported.  We may get paid by brands or deals, including promoted items.
Sorry, this deal has expired. Get notified of deals like this in the future. Add Deal Alert for this Item
Popular

The God Equation: The Quest for a Theory of Everything (eBook) by Michio Kaku $1.99

$1.99
$12.99
+12 Deal Score
4,116 Views
First time on sale
$11.00 lower (%85 savings) than the regular price of $12.99

Available Retailers:
AuthorMichio Kaku
PublisherAnchor
Publication dateApril 6, 2021
Print length215 pages
Customer Reviews★★★★ / 3,351 ratings
Great on Kindle
#1 NEW YORK TIMES BEST SELLER •The epic story of the greatest quest in all of science—the holy grail of physics that would explain the creation of the universe—from renowned theoretical physicist and author of The Future of the Mind and The Future of Humanity

When Newton discovered the law of gravity, he unified the rules governing the heavens and the Earth. Since then, physicists have been placing new forces into ever-grander theories.

But perhaps the ultimate challenge is achieving a monumental synthesis of the two remaining theories—relativity and the quantum theory. This would be the crowning achievement of science, a profound merging of all the forces of nature into one beautiful, magnificent equation to unlock the deepest mysteries in science: What happened before the Big Bang? What lies on the other side of a black hole? Are there other universes and dimensions? Is time travel possible? Why are we here?

Kaku also explains the intense controversy swirling around this theory, with Nobel laureates taking opposite sides on this vital question. It is a captivating, gripping story; what's at stake is nothing less than our conception of the universe.

Written with Kaku's trademark enthusiasm and clarity, this epic and engaging journey is the story of The God Equation.

More eBooks Deals

https://smile.amazon.com/God-Equa...B08CTGL22R
Good Deal?
in eBooks (13) Get BooksaMillion.com Coupons
If you purchase something through a post on our site, Slickdeals may get a small share of the sale.
Deal
Score
+12
4,116 Views
$1.99
$12.99
Don't have Amazon Prime? Students can get a free 6-Month Amazon Prime trial with free 2-day shipping, unlimited video streaming & more. If you're not a student, there's also a free 1-Month Amazon Prime trial available. You can also earn cash back rewards on Amazon and Whole Foods purchases with the Amazon Prime Visa credit card. Read our review to see if it’s the right card for you.

12 Comments

Your comment cannot be blank.

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Oct 2017
L4: Apprentice
> bubble2 343 Posts
37 Reputation
organica
01-22-2023 at 02:15 PM.
01-22-2023 at 02:15 PM.
This guy says the same bs on every YouTube video a very good shill
4
7
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Jan 2017
L2: Beginner
> bubble2 86 Posts
24 Reputation
unskilledgamer
01-22-2023 at 02:34 PM.
01-22-2023 at 02:34 PM.
There is accepted physics and there is speculative physics. Speculative physics is fine, it's real physics, but you have to be clear about what it is and isn't.

Kaku is one of a number of string theorists who were not completely honest about how speculative string theory was. When experimental results in the last several years pretty much limited string theory to the realm of mathematics, Kaku pivoted and started peddling all kinds of speculative physics.

He is still deceptive about the difference between accepted and speculative physics. This stuff isn't fantasy. These are models that do not replace but extend accepted physics and are consistent with observations but haven't resulted in predictions that aren't explainable any other way. One or more of these ideas may be correct. It's just that nothing in this book is experimentally verified or widely accepted to be correct. Historically, speculative physics has shown to be wrong much, much, much, much, much more than it is right.

What Kaku is doing is harmful and erodes public trust. Ideas that are correct, such as relativity or evolution or anti-matter are mixed and confused with interesting ideas which will later be discovered to be incorrect. You see this in a comment below where someone dismisses anti-matter which every bit as real and true as anything else in physics. The commenter also mentions dark matter, which is better described as a description of gravitational anomalies observed many different ways at a cosmological scale. It may or may not be an undiscovered particle. If it turns out that there is no dark matter but the theory of gravity is incomplete and has to be completed to work at cosmological scales then people will lose even more trust in physics.

This is why it's important to be clear about speculative and accepted physics.
14
2
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Last edited by unskilledgamer January 22, 2023 at 03:10 PM.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users

Show Comment
Joined Mar 2022
L2: Beginner
> bubble2 40 Posts
14 Reputation
MNight68
01-22-2023 at 03:56 PM.
01-22-2023 at 03:56 PM.
Quote from unskilledgamer :
There is accepted physics and there is speculative physics. Speculative physics is fine, it's real physics, but you have to be clear about what it is and isn't.

Kaku is one of a number of string theorists who were not completely honest about how speculative string theory was. When experimental results in the last several years pretty much limited string theory to the realm of mathematics, Kaku pivoted and started peddling all kinds of speculative physics.

He is still deceptive about the difference between accepted and speculative physics. This stuff isn't fantasy. These are models that do not replace but extend accepted physics and are consistent with observations but haven't resulted in predictions that aren't explainable any other way. One or more of these ideas may be correct. It's just that nothing in this book is experimentally verified or widely accepted to be correct. Historically, speculative physics has shown to be wrong much, much, much, much, much more than it is right.

What Kaku is doing is harmful and erodes public trust. Ideas that are correct, such as relativity or evolution or anti-matter are mixed and confused with interesting ideas which will later be discovered to be incorrect. You see this in a comment below where someone dismisses anti-matter which every bit as real and true as anything else in physics. The commenter also mentions dark matter, which is better described as a description of gravitational anomalies observed many different ways at a cosmological scale. It may or may not be an undiscovered particle. If it turns out that there is no dark matter but the theory of gravity is incomplete and has to be completed to work at cosmological scales then people will lose even more trust in physics.

This is why it's important to be clear about speculative and accepted physics.
No shade here... I'd like to have a beer with you and talk about this kind of stuff. Also, you talked me out of buying this book just by understanding your evaluation of his stance on science vs marketing and the mighty dollar!
4
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Oct 2016
L2: Beginner
> bubble2 77 Posts
161 Reputation
dontwannaspend
01-22-2023 at 04:06 PM.
01-22-2023 at 04:06 PM.
Quote from MNight68 :
No shade here... I'd like to have a beer with you and talk about this kind of stuff. Also, you talked me out of buying this book just by understanding your evaluation of his stance on science vs marketing and the mighty dollar!

Same! I almost bought it before I read that comment.
2
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Jul 2018
L3: Novice
> bubble2 1,732 Posts
150 Reputation
HelloClemFandango
01-22-2023 at 04:21 PM.
01-22-2023 at 04:21 PM.
The answer is 42.
1
2
2
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Jul 2018
L3: Novice
> bubble2 1,732 Posts
150 Reputation
HelloClemFandango
01-22-2023 at 04:23 PM.
01-22-2023 at 04:23 PM.
Quote from organica :
This guy says the same bs on every YouTube video a very good shill

You still mad that god doesn't exist?🤣
6
1
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Jan 2016
L4: Apprentice
> bubble2 451 Posts
90 Reputation
iamnothim
01-22-2023 at 05:08 PM.
01-22-2023 at 05:08 PM.
Quote from HelloClemFandango :
The answer is 42.

Obviously...
3
2
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Nov 2018
L3: Novice
> bubble2 218 Posts
54 Reputation
Isiton
01-22-2023 at 08:09 PM.
01-22-2023 at 08:09 PM.
I am listening on Audible, "Our Mathematical Universe" by Max Tegmark and it has gotten me more interested in multi verse, but I agree with others that Michio Kaku is loose with science for the sake of fiction, so going to avoid this book.
1
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Nov 2005
Li: Imaginary Expert
> bubble2 2,651 Posts
888 Reputation
Pro
BrainDoc
01-23-2023 at 03:56 AM.
01-23-2023 at 03:56 AM.
Quote from unskilledgamer :
Kaku is one of a number of string theorists who were not completely honest about how speculative string theory was. When experimental results in the last several years pretty much limited string theory to the realm of mathematics, Kaku pivoted and started peddling all kinds of speculative physics.

He is still deceptive about the difference between accepted and speculative physics. This stuff isn't fantasy. These are models that do not replace but extend accepted physics and are consistent with observations but haven't resulted in predictions that aren't explainable any other way. One or more of these ideas may be correct. It's just that nothing in this book is experimentally verified or widely accepted to be correct. Historically, speculative physics has shown to be wrong much, much, much, much, much more than it is right.

What Kaku is doing is harmful and erodes public trust.
I respectfully disagree with this. None of Kaku's works that I've read came across as presenting the universe as it is. He was always clear what he wrote about was not verified and therefore speculative (although theoretical is the better word). Maybe he could have been more clear but he is a theoretical physicist. What is confusing to some people is that theory/theoretical is used differently in science. We have "theory" like evolution, for example, which means an idea that has been well-established by experimental and observational work. Theoretical physics, on the other hand, is almost the opposite of that. It uses mathematical models and thought experiments to describe things we don't know, what you called speculations. So if someone misunderstands what theoretical physics is, then it's easy to misunderstand theoretical physicists as teaching facts when the reality is they are teaching "maybes". Kaku teaches maybes. Some of it might be "unscientific" because we can't really ever test or falsify it (things like the multiverse) but that doesn't mean people can't write about theoretical physics.

Some of the predictions and models are later verified (e.g., Einstein's work) but, as you wrote, others are not. This is still valuable work. I'm not saying all theoretical physicists are pursuing equally fruitful areas but I appreciate efforts to try and drive knowledge forward, even if it ultimately is misguided. The mathematical models can often be applied to other areas.

Kaku's books had a major influence in getting me into science (I don't do physics but am a neuroscientist). They had an influence on two friends of mine becoming physicists (although neither are theoretical physicists). He's an excellent science writer and communicator. Some of what he covers is what can be called more esoteric. Some of what he covers gets close to the "fringe" but it's possible to appreciate and value his books for communicating complex ideas.

Maybe some of his most recent books have gone off the deep end, so to speak, I don't know. I haven't read his newest books but will get through this one and if needed, revise my opinion. I read the introduction to the book and in there he clearly writes about all the failed attempts to reach the unified field theory. He clearly points out that we have "no solid, testable evidence" of string theory and ultimately might never be able to verify it. "This book will hopefully give you a balanced, objective analysis of string theory's breakthroughs and limitations." That sounds like him being a good scientist to me.

I'd love to see specific examples you can provide of his books or work harming public trust (in what -- science?).
2
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Last edited by BrainDoc January 23, 2023 at 04:13 AM.
Joined Mar 2009
L3: Novice
> bubble2 199 Posts
378 Reputation
Deal-Diva
01-26-2023 at 02:45 AM.
01-26-2023 at 02:45 AM.
Quote from SirVeyer :
Pretty soon they'll drop the word "theory" from the theory of everything and just call it the God equation just like it has now become Evolution and Big Bang, rather than the Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang Theory. Whenever they can't explain something, they will just invent more dimensions (no longer 3 but double digits), dark matter, or anti (pick a noun) particle to fudge their numbers and theories to fit their narrative. It takes more faith to believe in these theories than faith in a supreme creator. Ask what was before the big bang and where did all the matter come from before the explosion of the singularity that created everything.
Sounds like you don't understand what a scientific theory is. There is a Theory of Gravity and a Law of Gravity. They are different. And people can talk about gravity without invoking the Law or Theory. It is an accepted notion both scientifically and in the mainstream. So is evolution. A scientific theory explains some part of nature which has a lot of data behind it, and is widely supported in the scientific community. It isn't the same as saying, "I have a theory about that..." That would be, scientifically, a hypothesis. The idea of a Supreme Creator is hypothesis. There is no observed scientific data to support such a thing.
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Aug 2010
L6: Expert
> bubble2 1,000 Posts
672 Reputation
Pro
SirVeyer
01-26-2023 at 05:20 AM.
01-26-2023 at 05:20 AM.
Quote from Deal-Diva :
Sounds like you don't understand what a scientific theory is. There is a Theory of Gravity and a Law of Gravity. They are different. And people can talk about gravity without invoking the Law or Theory. It is an accepted notion both scientifically and in the mainstream. So is evolution. A scientific theory explains some part of nature which has a lot of data behind it, and is widely supported in the scientific community. It isn't the same as saying, "I have a theory about that..." That would be, scientifically, a hypothesis. The idea of a Supreme Creator is hypothesis. There is no observed scientific data to support such a thing.
Hogwash, AKA the Theory of Hogwash is based on the observation that what some consider scientific data is in actuality faith. Is it gravity or is it the warping of space time? Has anyone observed dark matter, the 4th through 11th dimensions, anti matter, anti particle, evolution, and the big bang? Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. I submit we have different faiths.
1
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Page 1 of 1
1
Start the Conversation
 
Link Copied

The link has been copied to the clipboard.