[.ca] The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics (ISBN 0195145925)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.