Book · 1988
A Brief History of Time
by Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking explains black holes, time, and the universe's beginning without a single equation, for readers who never took physics.
What does Reddit think of A Brief History of Time?
Every displayed excerpt in this corpus refers to the book as "A Brief History of Time," not the Briefer edition this page tracks — worth flagging before anything else, since r/AskScience isn't distinguishing between Hawking's 1988 original and the later update. What the sub agrees on: it's the default answer when someone asks for physics with no math (↑1388). What it won't let stand unchallenged is the accuracy. A reply to a mathematician (↑98) says to look elsewhere for rigor. A blunter comment (↑23) notes that Hawking rejected some of his own 1988 positions later, adding that "a lot of these answers haven't been updated since" the book came out, with Battle of the Big Bang offered as the current version. Even the black hole radiation account gets called "egregiously incorrect" by an outside source quoted in-thread (↑54). r/AskScience treats it as the on-ramp everyone used, not the destination anyone should still trust for specifics.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Black holes and the beginning of the universe explained without equations
- · Popular physics as a gateway rather than a citation
- · Hawking radiation and the arrow of time
- · A layperson's science book measured against later research
Common praise
- + Still the reflexive answer when someone on r/AskScience asks for a no-math intro to cosmology (↑1388).
- + Credited with making special relativity and black hole basics click for readers who'd bounced off denser texts.
- + Functions as a shared reference point across years of separate threads, not a one-time recommendation.
Common criticism
- − A reply aimed at a mathematician (↑98) tells readers to find more rigorous sources instead of relying on this book.
- − One comment (↑23) says plainly that Hawking rejected some of his own 1988 claims later, and recommends Battle of the Big Bang as the updated version.
- − An in-thread citation calls the book's account of black hole radiation "egregiously incorrect," not just simplified (↑54).
- − Reddit's citations are for the original 1988 edition throughout this sample, which sits awkwardly with tracking the Briefer revision under this title.
Who it's for
Want the black-hole conversation to make sense without opening a textbook? This is still what r/AskScience hands you first. Just don't stop there if you want the current answer rather than the 1988 one; several threads in this sample point out that Hawking revised his own thinking after publication, and some explanations here haven't aged evenly. Treat it as the on-ramp, then read whatever the same threads cite as the update (Battle of the Big Bang comes up for exactly this reason). If you already have the math background, the primary sources these threads keep pointing toward will serve you better.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for A Brief History of Time?
The most relevant excerpts across the subreddits where this book is mentioned — opinionated, argued takes first, then top-upvoted mentions. Click through to read the full thread.
“OP, I recommend reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking if you want a much more in-depth look at this theory. I’m in the middle of the book right now and it’s fascinating.
“If you're a mathematician, I'd recommend reading more rigorous sources than A Brief History of Time. Electron orbitals are the stationary solutions of the time-independent Schrodinger equation. The electron having negative total energy (where "zero" energy is defined by a particle at r = infinity,…
“From Starts With a Bang: "And yet, in his landmark 1988 book, A Brief History Of Time, Hawking paints a picture of this radiation — of spontaneously created particle-antiparticle pairs where one member falls in and the other escapes — that's egregiously incorrect. For 32 years, it's misinformed ph…
“I think a lot of the answers in this thread are misunderstanding what OP is asking - which is how, since gravity carries information about the size and existence of a black hole, how it can escape an event horizon, something for which it's impossible for information or causality at all to escape, by…
“The second. The speed of light is constant in all reference frames. So the signal travels at c, regardless of the velocity of its source, and no relay needs to exist. And yeah, special relativity is really hard to picture. Read some of Hawking's books, he was really good at explaining that stuff…
“Is there a particular "science for the lay-person" type of book you'd recommend, that discusses things like this without requiring the reader to know the math? I loved books like A Brief History of Time, Cosmos, and Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne, for example, but I'd love to read more …
“> Again, my understanding is fairly limited and largely from popular press like a brief history of time and such. So any errors here are all me. In that case please refrain from commenting, especially on very technical topic such as this one. A good rule of thumb is that if you can't provide peer r…
“A lot of these are answers that haven't been updated since Hawking's A Brief History of Time. Hawking ended up rejecting some of his own theories from the time. I strongly recommend Battle of the [Big Bang: The New Tales of Our Cosmic Origins](
“Somebody would have to help me out with the specifics, but in A Brief History of Time, Hawking describes the matter manifestation of the entire universe being balanced on a knife edge of particle symmetry... I could be wrong but I believe he says it’s possible for all matter in the universe to som…
“I own the illustrated version of both Universe in a Nutshell and A Brief History of Time (2 books in 1). I highly recommend the illustrated version if you can find it. It has amazong pictures and diagrams that help you visualize what Dr. Haking is describing. Very cool book.
“In A Brief History Of Time, near the end of the book, Hawking discusses a universe which is borderless and expands around you as you move through it, creating infinite movement through space. I don't think i fully understood how this was possible, does it require that space folds in a way like the …
“I found Stephen Hawking‘s book A Brief History of Time very accessible and can highly recommend it. I‘m sure you can find excerpts online, or you could simply go for a cheap cooy
“We don't know for sure. It may be possible that there's a version of every existing thing that we know made out of antimatter. We just don't know where in the entire Universe it may be. Stephen Hawking wrote about this in "A Briefer History of Time"
Convinced? Pick up A Brief History of Time
What else does r/AskScience read?
Other books mentioned in the same sub, ranked. Shared-sub overlap with this title breaks ties.
A Brief History of Time — frequently asked
Is A Briefer History of Time still accurate, according to Reddit?+
Partially, per r/AskScience. The recurring criticism (↑23) is that Hawking revised some of his own 1988 positions later, meaning parts of the original text are dated regardless of edition; a separate reply aimed at a mathematician (↑98) warns against treating it as a rigorous source. Good for the concepts, not for citing specifics.
Does Reddit distinguish A Briefer History of Time from the original A Brief History of Time?+
Not in this sample — every displayed excerpt refers to "A Brief History of Time," the 1988 original, not the updated Briefer edition. That's a real gap in the data: the discussion tracked here is about Hawking's first book, and readers deciding between the two editions won't find that comparison in these threads.
Is A Briefer History of Time a good starting point if I have no physics background?+
Yes, per the top-upvoted r/AskScience reply (↑1388), which points someone with no technical background straight to it. That's the consistent role across this sample: the default recommendation for readers who want black holes and cosmology explained without math, even as later comments flag specific claims as outdated.
What does r/AskScience say to read after A Briefer History of Time?+
Battle of the Big Bang: The New Tales of Our Cosmic Origins, per one comment (↑23), specifically because some of the original book's claims haven't aged well and Hawking revisited his own positions later. Treat the Hawking book as the entry point, not the last word.