Skip to main content

Simulating the Cosmos – Romeel Davé ****

There’s never been any shortage of popular science books about cosmology. But these books tend to focus on the two ‘ends’ of the subject: raw observations, such as the cosmic microwave background and Hubble’s deep field images on the one hand, and theoretical inferences ranging from cosmic inflation to dark energy on the other. There’s a whole ‘excluded middle’ between them that explains how the observational data leads to those theoretical conclusions, yet it’s rarely discussed in any depth at a popular level. It’s this omission that Romeel Davé seeks to remedy in this engrossing and entertaining book.

The ‘missing link’ I’m talking about is computer simulation, and the basic idea is simple enough. As Davé explains: ‘We put the relevant laws of physics into a computer, set up some initial conditions at an early cosmic epoch, add in all the ingredients we know of... and let it all churn in the world’s most powerful supercomputers until we produce a simulated universe.’ He goes on to say that, if the resulting ‘universe’ matches the observational data, then the simulation provides a very good pointer to its past history. If it doesn’t match, on the other hand, then there must be something wrong in all those assumptions – the ones about initial conditions, basic ingredients and so on – and we just have to keep revisiting them until the simulation comes out right.

This is a subject that’s close to my heart, since much of my career was spent developing and running simulations, both in astronomical and other contexts. Even so, I’m not sure I’d want to write a popular-level book about it, because I could easily get bogged down in technical minutiae of little interest to the general public. That’s why I’m so impressed by Davé’s book. He manages to convey a great sense of how cosmological simulations work, what they’re used for, and why the results are so important - all with very little technical detail or jargon – certainly no more than any other popular account of cosmology or extragalactic astronomy that I’ve read.

There was a time, not very long ago, when academic scientists really weren’t very good at doing popular science books. It wasn’t that they were poor writers, but they seemed to assume the general public’s level of education in their subject was roughly the same as one of their own undergraduate students, which meant they constantly used concepts and jargon that would alienate most people. Fortunately this ‘ivory tower’ attitude seems to be on the way out, and the younger generation of academics often make excellent science communicators. Romeel Davé, a professor of astronomy at the University of Edinburgh, is a case in point. I enjoyed his laid-back style so much I can’t help quoting a few bits:

On the state of cosmology in the 1990s: ‘Bizarre notions that sounded more like Isaac Asimov than Isaac Newton were wafting through the cosmological community.’ On the unpredictability of computer simulations: ‘Anything that is not explicitly forbidden will eventually happen, and even things that are explicitly forbidden will happen, only less frequently.’ On the physics of radiative cooling: ‘Electrons, like English bulldog puppies, are lazy; they would rather live at the lowest energy state possible.’

Despite this highly accessible writing style, and the book’s lack of unnecessary technicalities, I still think its audience is limited. That’s simply because it addresses a question – ‘how do astronomers use computer simulations to get from raw observational data to theories about the universe?’ – that I don’t think is going to appeal to everyone. Personally I loved it (Davé even devotes three pages to an obscure technique, called ‘N-body particle-mesh simulation’, that was the subject of my PhD thesis), and I’ve happily given it a five-star rating on Goodreads. Getting closer to what I suspect is the book’s core audience, the same might well be true of any space-mad teenager who spends their spare time coding video games. But I do recognise that not everyone in the world is a computer geek, so I’ve gone with four stars as far as general readers are concerned.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Andrew May - See more reviews or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more