As a physicist, I think it's a bad idea when scientists write popular science books where they try to explain advanced, unproven theories like various interpretations of time and gravity or string theory. First of all, it's not even real science as of now, and second, it gives readers a false sense of understanding: it's like in the (otherwise really bad) movie 'A Serious Man' where a student is complaining to his physics professor after a quantum theory test that he feels his failing grade is unfair, because he didn't know he would be tested on the mathematics and not just the physics ("I understand the physics! The cat if both alive and dead!"). The professor answers that the mathematics is the physics.
"Many dramatic-sounding statements are contained herein, but I’m going to be as careful as possible to distinguish between three different types: (1) remarkable features of modern physics that sound astonishing, but are nevertheless universally accepted as true; (2) sweeping claims that are not necessarily accepted by many working physicists, but they should be, as there is no question they are correct; and (3) speculative ideas beyond the comfort zone of contemporary scientific state of the art. We certainly won’t shy away from speculation, but it will always be clearly labeled. When all is said and done, you’ll be equipped to judge for yourself which parts of the story make sense."
(Of course, inevitably some people will misjudge for themselves, but that's a danger even for rigorous and un-popular science books.)
From his description, and from the bits and pieces I've picked up on other blogs, while the book is a popular science book, it's skewed much more to the science side than the popular side.
If I may ask a related question, I recently read the book "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality", which is targeted to an audience of non-specialists too.
Do you happen to know it, and do you happen to have an opinion about the accuracy of it? It appears to be genuinely accurate, but I have reference to know this is true.
"Assuming an audience of non-specialists, Greene has set himself a daunting task: to explain non-intuitive, mathematical concepts like String Theory, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and Inflationary Cosmology with analogies drawn from common experience. For the most part, he succeeds."
Lets just say that nobody reads popular science/physics books for "real" understanding. I always thought of them more as entertainers, giving a glimpse into the mysteries of modern physics, even if superficial or exaggerated, clearer than what probably the situation at the ground is. Not every one can spend enough time to go through the painstaking path of understanding physics up to the level of Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity. If I really wanted to understand what was happening, I would go pick up David Griffiths.
Sean Carroll, the physicist interviewed in this article, blogs at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/ where (among other things) he's conducting a sort of online book club looking at his recently published book.
As a physicist, I think it's a bad idea when scientists write popular science books where they try to explain advanced, unproven theories like various interpretations of time and gravity or string theory. First of all, it's not even real science as of now, and second, it gives readers a false sense of understanding: it's like in the (otherwise really bad) movie 'A Serious Man' where a student is complaining to his physics professor after a quantum theory test that he feels his failing grade is unfair, because he didn't know he would be tested on the mathematics and not just the physics ("I understand the physics! The cat if both alive and dead!"). The professor answers that the mathematics is the physics.