Status
Available
Call number
Collection
Publication
Milano, Rizzoli
Description
How did a single "genesis event" create billions of galaxies, black holes, stars and planets? How did atoms assemble--here on earth, and perhaps on other worlds--into living beings intricate enough to ponder their origins? What fundamental laws govern our universe? This book describes new discoveries and offers remarkable insights into these fundamental questions. There are deep connections between stars and atoms, between the cosmos and the microworld. Just six numbers, imprinted in the "big bang," determine the essential features of our entire physical world. Moreover, cosmic evolution is astonishingly sensitive to the values of these numbers. If any one of them were "untuned," there could be no stars and no life. This realization offers a radically new perspective on our universe, our place in it, and the nature of physical laws.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member NielsenGW
Rees’ small volume on cosmology is good but not great. He details the origins and fine-tuned-ness of six physical constants: N (10^36 = strength of atomic electrical forces); E (0.007 = nuclear force); Omega (the amount of dark matter in the universe); Lambda (anti-gravitational force); Q
Show More
(1/100,000 = ratio between fundamental energies); and D (3 = number of dimensions). If any of these numbers were slightly off, we would not have the universe as we recognize it today. While Rees has neither the flare or plain-spoken-ness that Brian Greene possesses, he gets his point across with some competence. I wouldn’t recommend starting with this book, but it is nevertheless a decent source of cosmological wonder. Show Less
LibraryThing member MarkBeronte
Science writer and astronomer Rees summarizes the history of the universe, pointing out that six numbers related to basic physical constants (for example, the relative strengths of the gravitational and electromagnetic attraction) determine how the universe developed. In addition, he shows how, if
Show More
these numbers were only slightly different, stars and galaxies would not form, complex chemistry would not be possible, and life could not evolve. This raises the interesting philosophical question, Why? One could dismiss the question by saying that, if it were otherwise, we wouldn't be here to ask or that there is some underlying theory as yet unknown that would show that these values must be what they are. However, Rees suggests that these numbers were set shortly after the big bang and could well have been different. Indeed, there may be a multitude of other universes, forever inaccessible to us, in which they are different. Thus, with a huge choice of possible universes, one must exist that could support intelligent beings who can observe and question. Whether one agrees or not with Rees's ideas, his book is recommended for its cogent synopsis of modern cosmologic thought Show Less
LibraryThing member paulrach
Excellent introduction to cosmology and astronomy. Very easy to read and understand, and has everything to make you want to explore the subject further.
LibraryThing member joeteo1
Despite the suggestions of other reviews, this book has nothing to do with theology or "intelligent design". The author, Martin Rees, is a cosmologist at Cambridge University and does not propagate the ideas of intelligent design in any way. In fact , in the final chapter Rees states that he does
Show More
not interpret the fine tuning of universal constants to an intelligent designer but rather supports the notion of a "multiuniverse". Just Six Numbers is a well-written introduction into the forces that shape our existence. The book focuses on 6 fundamental constants in the universe and how key the values of these numbers are towards the universe and life ever coming into being. I can see how the religious crowd would jump on these ideas as "proof" of god but a simple swipe of Occam's razor takes care of these notions. Not overly technical and no mathematics required to enjoy and understand this book. Show Less
LibraryThing member WilliamPascoe
I can see how this book could be considered to contribute to the debate about intelligent design, but unless I missed something fundamental, it is a dispassionate exposition based upon rigorous science. As with all scientifically based literature, it is open to interpretation. Science should just
Show More
provide data to inform hypotheses, not interpret things in any subjective way. Unfortunately, many non-scientists do not follow this discipline, so I can see how the data presented here could be hi-jacked by creationists. Professor Rees has posed many more questions than he has answered - which is to be expected. I read this book in a spirit of scientific curiosity, and I found it very informative and entertaining. frankly, I would recommend it to anyone, scientifically oriented or not. Show Less
LibraryThing member JABorn
I wonder if any one here read the same book I did, I found the book to be very readable. I didn't see much of the Intelligent design stuff. it it spoke of it, i would have said it put everything within limits. As general readable text (Brian Green's stuff is sometimes not) I think it is a great
Show More
book all should read it to learn the rules of the road in cosmology. Show Less
LibraryThing member nbmars
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
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 More
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 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
LibraryThing member antao
(original review, 2000)
If there was an infinite number of universes wouldn't there be a universe in which a mad scientist had discovered how to destroy all the universes and pressed the button, so there would be nothing at all? But then there would also be a good scientist who devised a plan to
Fine tuning suggests that the Universe is at it is because in effect that's how it has to be therefore the creator is not malevolent. Believers would believe that the Universe is fine tuned whilst atheists would not. Therefore Devil's Advocate likes attributing believers with atheist views to lay a charge of brutality malevolent when in actual fact the malevolent theory is their own. Devil's Advocate has missed the fact that if you don't believe in fine tuning and you don't believe in God then you are laying the blame for random cruelty on evolution. The reverse is not true because believers accept fine tuning:
God + Belief + Fine tuning = No Malevolence (according to Dawkin’s argument);
Atheism + randomness + evolution = Biology professor criticising the welfare state for allowing thick yobs too have too many kids.
So, is there a universe somewhere in which every Tom, Dick and Harry et al are decent talented principled intelligent informed people with nothing but social & environmental good at heart & in action? Ah, well, clearly the multiverse hypothesis has just been irrevocably debunked. Pity. Nah. Nor really. There are definitely multiverses. They exist on the far side of infinity. More importantly, did my cat Ilsa go to heaven? I'm not sure. Maybe she's God in a reverse multiverse. And perhaps (nay, certainly) also a universe in which the multiverse theory does not apply. (*head explodes*) But what do I know. I'm too thick to understand any of this. More importantly: Can Benfica win the Portuguese League this year, that's what I want to know. Sure can. In the universe 3 universes over, they win it with a team made up entirely of dachshunds!
Seriously, the many-worlds interpretation isn't really about the universe splitting per se, the goal is to avoid the problem of wavefunction collapse that is invoked in measurement. The principle of superposition means that we can create states that are, for example, half spin up and half spin down. When we make a measurement of the spin, the wavefunction collapses into only one of these states. However, these measurement processes are qualitatively different from unobserved processes, which allow the wavefunction to evolve smoothly with time. This has led to a lot of discussions about the role of observers in quantum mechanics (Schrödinger's cat, etc.). The basic idea of many worlds is that there is nothing special about measurement. The wavefunction only appears to collapse to the (necessarily quantum) observer, but all possible universes coexist in the same way that the states spin up and down can coexist for the electron.
If there was an infinite number of universes wouldn't there be a universe in which a mad scientist had discovered how to destroy all the universes and pressed the button, so there would be nothing at all? But then there would also be a good scientist who devised a plan to
Show More
stop the mad scientist from pressing the button in the first place! What if they are one & the same, who wins? But as with Madeira Island's Nationalism, the bad scientist would only have to succeed once.Fine tuning suggests that the Universe is at it is because in effect that's how it has to be therefore the creator is not malevolent. Believers would believe that the Universe is fine tuned whilst atheists would not. Therefore Devil's Advocate likes attributing believers with atheist views to lay a charge of brutality malevolent when in actual fact the malevolent theory is their own. Devil's Advocate has missed the fact that if you don't believe in fine tuning and you don't believe in God then you are laying the blame for random cruelty on evolution. The reverse is not true because believers accept fine tuning:
God + Belief + Fine tuning = No Malevolence (according to Dawkin’s argument);
Atheism + randomness + evolution = Biology professor criticising the welfare state for allowing thick yobs too have too many kids.
So, is there a universe somewhere in which every Tom, Dick and Harry et al are decent talented principled intelligent informed people with nothing but social & environmental good at heart & in action? Ah, well, clearly the multiverse hypothesis has just been irrevocably debunked. Pity. Nah. Nor really. There are definitely multiverses. They exist on the far side of infinity. More importantly, did my cat Ilsa go to heaven? I'm not sure. Maybe she's God in a reverse multiverse. And perhaps (nay, certainly) also a universe in which the multiverse theory does not apply. (*head explodes*) But what do I know. I'm too thick to understand any of this. More importantly: Can Benfica win the Portuguese League this year, that's what I want to know. Sure can. In the universe 3 universes over, they win it with a team made up entirely of dachshunds!
Seriously, the many-worlds interpretation isn't really about the universe splitting per se, the goal is to avoid the problem of wavefunction collapse that is invoked in measurement. The principle of superposition means that we can create states that are, for example, half spin up and half spin down. When we make a measurement of the spin, the wavefunction collapses into only one of these states. However, these measurement processes are qualitatively different from unobserved processes, which allow the wavefunction to evolve smoothly with time. This has led to a lot of discussions about the role of observers in quantum mechanics (Schrödinger's cat, etc.). The basic idea of many worlds is that there is nothing special about measurement. The wavefunction only appears to collapse to the (necessarily quantum) observer, but all possible universes coexist in the same way that the states spin up and down can coexist for the electron.
Show Less
LibraryThing member expatscot
An excellent Popular Science trip through the bits that just seem weird with one of the world's great cosmologists. Sir Martin manages to keep things just about understandable for someone who needs to remind himself which one lambda is, but thinks it's Einstein's one.
It's 20 years since this was
It's 20 years since this was
Show More
published and that means I'm off to figure out what's moved on as I certainly know parts have, but I'll feel more comfortable so doing having read this book. Show Less
LibraryThing member nx74defiant
He does a pretty good job of explaining things and keeping it simple. Some parts were very interesting. Other parts went right over my head
Subjects
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
1999
ISBN
881786756X / 9788817867566