Martin J. Rees

You may be familiar with a so called “proof” for the existence of a creator [or do I mean “Creator” (?)] from the apparent design of [his or her] creatures. This argument has been pretty much debunked as it applies to living animals by (1) the theory of evolution and (2) a deep understanding how the phenomenon of emergence can result in complex order arising from randomness despite the second law of thermodynamics. Nonetheless, it does seem as if the earth is very well suited for show more human life and probably will continue to be so unless climate change deniers prevent sensible people from taking steps necessary to protect our environment.

Indeed, the fact that human life evolved as it did seems to be dependent on the fact that a number of ratios of physical phenomena fall within some very sensitive parameters. Martin Rees, a Royal Society Research Professor at Cambridge University, who was also the official Astronomer Royal of Great Britain, wrote a very interesting book in 1999 that explored the sensitivity of six of those parameters, which he argues are fundamental to modern physics and the known structure of the universe.

Rees observes that each of these ratios has to fall within a very narrow range or, for example (in no particular order): (1) atoms could not have formed after the Big Bang, (2) galaxies could not have formed, (3) the universe would have already collapsed upon itself, (4) the nuclear power generated at the core of the sun would not diffuse outward at just the right rate to balance the heat lost at the surface, and (5) there could be no complex chemistry, atoms larger than helium being unstable.

Although arguing that the universe is spookily “fine tuned,” Rees draws no conclusions as to whether a benign Creator made it so. Other sources like YouTube indicate that he is an atheist. Instead of God, he discusses the cosmological theory of the “multiverse,” the possibility that there are many, if not an infinite number of, other universes that are not as finely tuned as our own. In such a case, the anthropic principal dictates that our universe is finely tuned for human benefit because if it were not, we would not be here!

Evaluation: This book is well worth reading for a lot of reasons. It gives a lucid explication of many physics principles and serves as an excellent introduction to advances in cosmology. I would quibble with the premise that all the constants are “fine tuned,” but his argument that human life depends on several of them falling within narrow limits appears irrefutable.

(JAB) show less

This book's title and subtitle accurately describe its content. It, or one like it, should be read by everyone prone to dismiss scientists as privileged elitists who are at last being treated with the scorn they deserve. (Trouble is, in these polarized times, I fear that it won't be.) The distinguished authors offer plenty of both simple facts, such as science having a mindset of disciplined wonder, and more elaborate truths, such as the enterprise's objectivity arising from interactions show more within the scientific community rather than from individual scientists. "Anecdotalism", a trait I often find to be unwelcome in contexts such as newscasts, finds an appropriate place here: eight detailed profiles of particular scientists are included, one in a chapter of its own and the others between chapters. The profilees of most interest to me were physicists John Mather and Werner Heisenberg. show less

Here highly regarded British astronomer Rees offers his personal takes on the "tensions that can arise between scientists, the public, and policymakers" when it comes to addressing today's raft of global threats and challenges such as climate change. These threats are mostly traceable, I'd say, to the world's gross overpopulation, though Rees steers clear of saying that. The book has sections on what science is and how it works; connections with the military; different countries' science show more policies, organizations, and education (largely but not wholly focusing on the UK and the US), and various other topics and issues regarding the milieux for scientific work. How can we get political leaders to read it all? show less

I picked up this book because I wanted to read Rees' book Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe. Unfortunately the library didn't have it, so I checked this one out instead. I didn't find it all that interesting. I felt like Rees was trying to cover too much in too small a book, and didn't give enough room for some additional explanation.

He does cover a lot of topics if you're looking for a good survey of cosmology/astronomy, but just know he really only skims the show more surface of them. But it may catch your interest to research some of the topics further. He covers the Big Bang, and the future of the Universe. He also covers whether we live in a 'Universe' or a 'Multiverse'. (He believes the latter.) He says our best chance to find this out (as well as other questions, such as what happened in the first instant of the Big Bang, what are the values of lambda, and why such a simple recipe led to such a complex cosmos) is by unifying the quantum mechanics and general relativity, or the 'Theory of Everything'.

One note of interest: Rees writes "I would bet reasonable odds that by the year 2010 we will be very confident of what the dominant dark matter is, the value of lambda, and the properties of the dark energy in the vacuum." It just goes to show how very complex these aspects of cosmology are, since it is now 2010, and I don't believe we are any nearer an answer than when this book was written (2001). show less