Talk:Cycles of Time

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Cycles of Time. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Cycles of Time at the Reference desk.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Physics: Publications Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Publications Taskforce.

Reception[edit]

I have provided very basic coverage of this. Any one who has full text access to science journal coverage / reviews on this book feel free to contribute. Nature, Science, New Scientist, physics journals etc . SkyMachine (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews by fellow scientists seem to be thin on the ground! This is probably because there is little milage and a potential for painful embarrassment in pointing out that the book is a mishmash (AutoCorrect turned this into miss-mash, strangely apt!) of solid exposition of mathematical physics by an eminent contributor to the field and on the other hand pretty much baseless, puerile speculation that would not be tolerated coming from anyone with less stature. Then again, a glance at the amazon reviews shows that the book is massively popular with an audience that could never hope to understand the slightest bit of it...81.178.157.195 (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception by the Scientific Community[edit]

So far the comments on the book come from nonscientists (including a fiction writer!), or science writers, which only inform us about readability for a layperson. There is one by someone with a degree in nuclear physics, but that is not the topic. It would be preferable to reflect the critiques from mathematical scientists or those working in information theory.Limit-theorem (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]