Skip to main content

A Chorus of Big Bangs - Adam Susskind ***

This is an oddity, which is trying to do something that scientists usually avoid at all costs: making us think about what we take on faith when we consider cosmology. If the 'F' word is a problem for you, I wouldn't bother to read any further, but Adam Susskind is certainly right to point out it is not just the religious part of the world population who rely on faith - to take the atheist standpoint that most scientists espouse also requires faith in the adequacy of sometimes tenuous theories when dealing with a science as hands-off as cosmology.

Susskind does a good job of identifying a range of cosmological theories that have been repeatedly patched up when holes have been found, to the extent that some now feel quite flaky. Many of the theories Susskind identifies are indeed currently problematic, but easily replaced by a better future scientific theory - for example dark matter, dark energy and inflation. Others are more fundamental and we genuinely don't have a particular good approach, for example for how the universe came into existence (unless we follow Fred Hoyle's lead with the steady state theory and find a mechanism for an eternal universe) or the remarkable fine tuning of the universe, for which the only scientific 'explanation' I've seen to date is the multiverse theory, which Philip Goff's Why? demonstrates so impressively is a misuse of probability.

A Chorus of Big Bangs is not without issues. It's self-published and it feels like it. The book is very thin with just 83 pages, and Susskind admits he has no science background, basing a lot of what he includes on TV science documentaries, which can be distinctly trivial in their approach. It's clear he is coming at this from a religious standpoint, though, to his credit, he does not explicitly bring this in - he merely points to the big holes that remain in cosmology. I think it might have had a better audience without that subtitle.

If I'm honest, I expected to find this book totally lacking in value, but it was surprisingly useful to have the various potential problems highlighted, using quotes from well-known scientists along the way to emphasise this.

Paperback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

  1. It is extremely rare to find book by layman reviewed by you on this site.What is the justification for this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many of our reviews are of books written by people who aren't working scientists. What is unusual is to review a self-published book. We get sent review requests for many of these. We don't review any that are covering new theories, but we will occasionally if they cover something that is within the remit of mainstream science in a different way. Given all the sources here were scientific and the fine tuning problem is well-established, it proved interesting. You may be interested in a blog post I'll be publishing later this week on my blog http://brianclegg.blogspot.com that looks into the surprising origins of a Fred Hoyle quote in this book.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

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