Reading the commentary on here is almost more entertaining.

Well, here are the few points I wanted to make that are not in the work itself and don't seem to be in here:

1. One of the most interesting parts of this thing is how the community responds to the idea of postulating about problems that cannot be observed. It almost plays like a Lutherian drama at that point (faith/works threatening to split a rift that will lead to civil war). But let's face it: a. the main discovery of the 20th C was uncertainty, which means that even if you can see the electron trail, you have not really succeeded in observing it (at least cleanly), and b. this is an edge that we are bound to have come upon and furthermore, consider the question of what we would do even if we could see down into a realm that bears no resemblance to where we exist, what would we be able to deduce (c.f. Ambrose Bierce's "The Damned Thing": 'nothing')? Anyway, I found this part and the echoes of it here most amusing.

2. Doesn't 1 kind of point in the direction of Wolfram's unoriginal revolution? Aren't we bound for a world of new information derived solely from simulation? Or are we already there? Why aren't scientists screaming when the proteomics people talk about simulating protein formation?

3. Scientists are sometimes great story tellers, and sometimes not. This is definitely a case of not. The Newtonian/Einsteinian vectors being returned to ad nauseum are clear signs of a threadbare, almost infantile notion of story construction (with the apple falling standing in, for instance, for the fallen cherry tree of yore). Gleick's book about Feynman shows that that great man view of all things is certainly gone (if it ever did make any sense). Great to herald the accomplishments of others, but should be in a context that provides more depth than the rodeo scene from "Annie Get Your Gun."

4. Most of the hard questions here were really ultimately ducked or served cold. The buildup to the genius coming in and solving the five models problem was so drawn out I started to think TiVo was tormenting me by replaying sections (I couldn't imagine a conscious editor called for that many repeats). And then the genius' conclusion is that the five models are all reflections of one reality. Ah, I see.... Hello? Are we that dumb? If so, why are we watching? A little more detail please.

I hope this cat doesn't decide to do a film about Fermat's Last Theorem... I'd like see something that takes a bit more bother with the seminal moment and less with the titillation.

{APOLOGIA: A review as damning as what follows will inevitably seem hyperbolic and unkind. Yet "The Elegant Universe" is such a singular case, and egregious misexample to both the science-documentary profession and public, that I have only said here what was accurate, condign, and the duty of any conscientious, technically knowledgeable commentator.}

What a vapid production! Terribly, almost moronically, edited, taking forever to say anything, endlessly repetitious. Narcissistic. Precision and key details missing everywhere. No profound development of ideas. Images and props constantly get in the way of meaning and exposition, and most of what IS said will surely already be known to the majority of the literate public.

Ironically, "The Elegant Universe" is the least elegant of science productions. It could be skillfully cut to a third or a fourth of its present length without substantive, persuasive, or artistic loss, but much dramatic gain.

Absurd platitudes fairly trip over one another's feet. Why is Isaac Newton supposed to be the "greatest scientist of all time"? In point of fact, he is a most unlikely choice.

This is the worst science film I have ever seen as a scientist, at least for its length and melodramatic ambition. Although kindergartners might like it. Certainly the ingenious visual and musical simulation of the jittering Dirac vacuum is magnificent!

With respect to superstring theory itself, this supposed documentary is more like an advertisement than an honest examination of what to date remains a charming but sterile scientific theory, a theory that could easily be joined by a thousand other ideas, neither less nor more plausible, on the same shallow pond of data, where they could all figure skate together. A scientific theory never "proclaims" anything about the universe; only its exponents - physicist Greene, in this instance - can be guilty of THAT.

Although I found much to enjoy, and more than a little enlightenment, in Brian Greene's superb book of the same title years ago, and strongly recommended its purchase to sophisticated lay friends, in this extraordinarily bathetic television tutorial there is little or no trace of his expository genius and style. I am afraid that in the making of this program the youthful Prof. Greene allowed himself to be badly misused by his handlers.

The universe is not a cartoon, and science - as publicly understood and professionally pursued - can only be degraded and perverted by such undignified, unintellectual drivel.

Final impression: Revolting! Literally an embarrassment to watch.

This is an easy one to rate, for me anyway. The depth and continuity of this 3 part series on a heretofore uncovered topic is excellent. Only Timothy Ferris has produced science documentaries at this level in the last decade or so ("Beyond Earth", "The Creation Of The Universe")

A superb presentation that explores the boundary between physics theory that can be experimented against (quarks, etc), and that which currently cannot (strings).

Let this miniseries be a testament to the old adage: When one cannot have substance, at least have style. Okay, maybe that's not an old adage. But it certainly applies to NOVA's attempt to televise "The Elegant Universe." It was so repetitious with the same generally campy (and overly computerised) animations and graphics that rather than actualy conveying any information, the audience gazed upon branes and entropic loops.

It seems to me that Superstring Theory has become a recent fad among those physicists who actually leave their houses. Championed by Columbia University professor Brian Greene, the theory (in my mind, at least in this NOVA set, more accurately an over-glorified idea) has become popular and given way to some rather interesting ideas.

Throughout this, as well, I couldn't help but get the impression that most of the scientists really thought string theory was a cool idea - but couldn't support it for the life of them. It's difficult (as a logical thinker) to believe a bunch of rambling about how cool something *could* be, but without any facts to support it. The concept is interesting to throw around, but there's no real support to be found in the NOVA series: Again, another reason to pick up the book. The professors can wax poetic about string theory to the point of excess, but eventually one has to ask: Am I actually learning anything?

This series aired in late October of 2003 during two or three weeks of NOVA on PBS. I witnessed it then, and subsequently witnessed it at a later date (and upon my completion of the pre-first-viewing-begun "The Elegant Universe"). If NOVA had actually decided to be economical with the repetition of the basic ideas, this three-part series could have quite easily been shrunk to two, or even one.

Truth be told, it really wasn't as hideous as I may be impressing. I would most definitely recommend watching this series before actually reading "The Elegant Universe." If you have literally no knowledge of superstring theory, this is an excellent starting point: Greene manages to make quite complicated ideas clear via parallels he draws to "real" circumstances. It seems, too, that NOVA would recognise that the folks who stay home and watch television shows on theoretical microsphysics might not be so interested in watching a repetative, overly-simplified three-hour discussion, explanation, and theoretics of string theory.

If you're genuinely interested, but not sure where to start, this DVD set can be an excellent starting point. It is a gentle ease into the world of string theory. However, you should most definitely continue your interest with the book by Brian Greene of the same name, or his book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" (it's the new one). Overall, a valiant effort to bring a rather esoteric idea to the masses...But also, the impression that it's been so unashamedly watered down that it alienates exactly who is enticed.

I don't claim to be a master of physics, nor do I have much understanding of the universe at the molecular level, but after watching this DVD I feel I now have a basic understanding of both. What I enjoyed the most were the historical referrences about those great men who came before and how their theories gradually revealed other avenues of higher thinking. But this DVD is certainly not for the casual viewer. My advice for the average citizen (like me) is to put on your thinking-cap before the program begins. There is plenty of knowledge here that has been proven absolutely that is well worth retaining. By the end of the program, "String Theory" remains just that, a theory. It is nonetheless an intriguing hypothesis that had me thinking about the fabric of the universe for days afterward. But I should mention the problems with the actual show. While there are plenty of visually impressive moments and intellectually stimulating phrases strewn throughout, there is some repetition by the end. At first, I appreciated the review of the more difficult ideas earlier in the show (including visuals), but later on the statements and theories become second-hand knowledge for those who were paying attention. Like how radical the ideas are, and how none of the theories may ever be proven, thus reducing the possibility of hard science into unprovable philosophy. But don't get me wrong, there is a lot of interesting material here to be pondered and discussed with like minds. But in the end, it still remains theory. Perhaps it is revolutionary to physicists, but to the common man, until it is proven, it may as well be The Twilight Zone.