Brian Clegg

I've long thought that the cosmologists and astrophysicists were "the smartest guys in the room". I'm no longer so sure. After reading Clegg's book with it's mind-numbing number of different concepts of the universe and its formation, I'm coming around to the view put forward by Roger Penrose that a lot of this is just fantasy. And, even the big bang (in Clegg's words)..."it must be stressed that it is a best guess, not a proven fact". ....And it relies on the basic assumption, which if not show more true, would disrupt present-day theories....... that the basic constants of the universe (the speed of light and the strength of gravity, for example) do not vary in different parts of the universe, nor have they varied through time.
I appreciate his comment that Astronomers really haven’t caught up with the rest of the scientific world in using these [light years] measures (to make matters worse, they also use the “astronomical unit” or AU which at around 150 million kilometres is an approximation of the distance from the Earth to the Sun), neither of which meets international standards. They tend to use parsecs among astronomers and light-years for communication to the public, but arguably should get their act together!
I was intrigued by his comment that: We tend to assume that the universe is spherical. This goes back to the sort of reasoning Roger Bacon....However, if we assume the universe is a dodecahedron (a twelve-sided solid where each side is a pentagon) then an image coming out one side and back in another would be rotated through thirty-six degrees, reflecting the difference in orientation of the two sides.....Roukema found that if you cut rings out of the WMAP picture of the early universe and rotated them through thirty-six degrees, then it was possible to match up these rings with equivalent unrotated rings in the “opposite” side of the universe". But this seemed to be the end of the discussion about Roukema and I'm left wondering has anyone taken this observation further. It seems pretty significant to meClegg runs through a whole series of individuals and their contributions to the ever evolving story of the origins and properties of our universe. (It's almost like he is reproducing his filing cards on the mini biographies of his cast of characters). However, I did find this interesting. What I do find incredible is that the theories seem to get wilder and wilder and there seems to be no way of disproving them. So one outlandish theory is added to another. So for example with string theory and M theory, Clegg says:
"The problem with string theory and M theory for some is that it doesn't provide a clear identifiable solution, that what is observed in our universe is just one of an uncountable number of solutions the theory throws up. String theory gives no reason to choose that particular solution.......Where quantum electrodynamics makes startlingly accurate predictions, but has trouble with infinities, string theory is fine with infinities but makes no new predictions. Because of this, it is arguably useless as a scientific theory.
Lee Smolin suggested that after all this work, the theory makes no new predictions that are testable by current-or even currently conceivable- experiments......Superstring theory assumes that six of the ten dimensions are wrapped up small but as Feynman said, there's no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn't eight of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn't...produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn't look right".
I've been reading in many different places that its the background microwave radiation that "proves" the big bang, But Clegg says: The existence of cosmic microwave background radiation was useful supporting evidence for the Big Bang theory, but it is highly indirect evidence that could have many other reasons for existing and would later be used to support several opposing theories. There is no way that it can be regarded as absolute proof.
In principle, there should have been equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, which then should eventually have wiped each other out, leaving a universe full of energy alone.....This theory, devised by Andrei Sakharov, the Russian physicist suggests that as little as one particle in a billion survived the vast matter/ anti-matter wipe out. But that was enough......Although the Big Bang is the best accepted theory, it certainly isn’t the only one, and a number of scientists regularly pick holes in the evidence supporting it.....And, if it hadn’t been for the addition of the idea of inflation, the whole concept wouldn’t work, and the trouble with inflation is that although it’s something that would make what’s observable possible, no one can come up with a decent explanation as to why it should have happened"....."Most cosmologists speak as if these problems have been solved, but the solutions are really huge fudge factors, reminiscent of the introduction of the “luminiferous ether” centuries before". [so I find all of this a bit concerning.....they can't all be right].

And on dark energy and dark matter:......."Let’s be absolutely clear here. Dark matter and dark energy are accepted parts of the current most widely accepted model of the universe, but as was the ether before them, they are unlikely constructs, added to make an inexplicable behaviour fit the natural world....There is certainly already a range of theories that render them unnecessary" show less

Fantastic and absolutely essential for the understanding of pros and cons of the ‘Green Movement’ and its opponents as well as all fears associated with ecology and environment protection. It takes a balanced view on both camps and demonstrates on vivid and particular examples where there is sense and where there is fanaticism or ruse. What is more important it shows how fixation on some well publicized aspects of environmental threats shifts us in tunnel vision mode thus making us show more irrational. It somewhat irreverently approaches such icons of green immaculacy as Carbon footprints, Priuses, biofuel, Fairtrade, organic products, alternative energy sources etc. inviting us to take a closer look at the arguments of their proponents and critics. It is a vastly revealing and rewarding read that without negating all those healthy kernels which are there in the above mentioned examples still helps us see cases when righteousness and/or trickery are used by both sides to take advantage of the gullible and impulsive audience that is us. Should be read in schools and universities as an example of clear and logical thinking, which takes into equation all considerations. show less

The author devotes so much space to arguing that humans are *already* in their 2.0 version, recounting a lot of the history and prehistory of cultural and technological evolution, that there is relatively little left for the discussions of possible future upgrades such as life extension and brain enhancements. Though skeptical of transhumanism and the tech singularity, he says that "those who panic at the thought of enhancing the basic human being miss the point that is the basis of this show more book. We have been enhancing ourselves ever since our brains developed enough to start making use of the things around us." (p 258) Amen: _techne_ surpasses _phusis_ (art surpasses nature). show less

I mostly enjoyed it--some minor quibbles (and I'm not a theoretical astrophysicist, or I may have had more): there was an evident error at some point (it was one of those easy to do ones, like leaving out the word "not"), it's about 2/3 of the way through before we get to before the Big Bang, the title's a bit of a misnomer because much of the (later part of the) book supposes there is no Big Bang--but on the plus side I (mostly) followed the science and found it very entertaining as well show more ... it's pretty much the ideal tone for administering complicated scientific ideas.

(Note: 5 stars = amazing, wonderful, 4 = very good book, 3 = decent read, 2 = disappointing, 1 = awful, just awful. I'm fairly good at picking for myself so end up with a lot of 4s). I feel a lot of readers automatically render any book they enjoy 5, but I grade on a curve! show less