Talk:Cycles of Time

Reception
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)
 * 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)

Reception by the Scientific Community
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)