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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on