What do you think?
Rate this book
賮賯胤 爻鬲丞 兀乇賯丕賲
鬲乇噩毓 兀賴賲賷丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱兀賴賲賷丞 賲丐賱賮賴 (賲丕乇鬲賳 乇賷爻)貙 賮賱賰賷 丕賱賲賲賱賰丞 丕賱亘乇賷胤丕賳賷丞 賵賵丕丨丿 賲賳 兀賴賲 毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱賮賷夭賷丕亍 賵丕賱賮賱賰 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲. 賷卮乇丨 賱賳丕 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 丕賱丨丕爻賲 賴匕丕 亘賱睾丞 兀賳賷賯丞 賲亘爻胤丞貙 賰賷賮 卮賰賱鬲 爻鬲丞 兀乇賯丕賲 賮賯胤 丕賱氐賵乇丞 丕賱丨丕賱賷丞 賱賰賵賳賳丕 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇.
賴匕賴 丕賱兀乇賯丕賲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲囟亘胤 卮賰賱 賵丨噩賲 賵鬲乇賰賷亘 丕賱賰賵賳 -賵丕賱鬲賷 賱賵 鬲睾賷乇鬲 兀賷 鬲睾賷乇 囟卅賷賱 賱賲丕 鬲賰賵賳鬲 丕賱賳噩賵賲 賵丕賱賲噩乇丕鬲貙 賵賱賲丕 馗賴乇鬲 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賲賳 丕賱兀爻丕爻- 鬲囟毓賳丕 兀賲丕賲 賮乇囟賷丞 毓丕賯賱丞 賵丕丨丿丞貨 丕賱賰賵賳 賲毓丿賹 亘毓賳丕賷丞 廿賱賴賷丞. 兀賵 賮乇囟賷丕鬲 兀禺乇賶 賲睾乇賯丞 賮賷 丕賱賱丕毓賯賱丕賳賷丞貙 賵賱賴丕 賴丿賮 賵丨賷丿貙 賵賴賵 兀賳 賳丐賲賳 亘兀賳 丕賱廿毓丿丕丿 丕賱丿賯賷賯 賱賱賰賵賳貙 丨丿孬 亘爻亘亘 兀賷 卮賷亍 廿賱丕 賵噩賵丿 丕賱毓賳丕賷丞 丕賱廿賱賴賷丞 賵丕賱禺丕賱賯 丕賱丨賰賷賲.
http://www.braheen.com/center-publica...
賴匕賴 丕賱兀乇賯丕賲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲囟亘胤 卮賰賱 賵丨噩賲 賵鬲乇賰賷亘 丕賱賰賵賳 -賵丕賱鬲賷 賱賵 鬲睾賷乇鬲 兀賷 鬲睾賷乇 囟卅賷賱 賱賲丕 鬲賰賵賳鬲 丕賱賳噩賵賲 賵丕賱賲噩乇丕鬲貙 賵賱賲丕 馗賴乇鬲 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賲賳 丕賱兀爻丕爻- 鬲囟毓賳丕 兀賲丕賲 賮乇囟賷丞 毓丕賯賱丞 賵丕丨丿丞貨 丕賱賰賵賳 賲毓丿賹 亘毓賳丕賷丞 廿賱賴賷丞. 兀賵 賮乇囟賷丕鬲 兀禺乇賶 賲睾乇賯丞 賮賷 丕賱賱丕毓賯賱丕賳賷丞貙 賵賱賴丕 賴丿賮 賵丨賷丿貙 賵賴賵 兀賳 賳丐賲賳 亘兀賳 丕賱廿毓丿丕丿 丕賱丿賯賷賯 賱賱賰賵賳貙 丨丿孬 亘爻亘亘 兀賷 卮賷亍 廿賱丕 賵噩賵丿 丕賱毓賳丕賷丞 丕賱廿賱賴賷丞 賵丕賱禺丕賱賯 丕賱丨賰賷賲.
http://www.braheen.com/center-publica...
214 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
274 people are currently reading
7748 people want to read
About the author
Martin J. Rees
59听books294听followersMartin John Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, OM, PRS (born June 23, 1942 in York) is an English cosmologist and astrophysicist. He has been Astronomer Royal since 1995, and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge since 2004. He became President of the Royal Society on December 1, 2005.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 239 reviews
September 27, 2018
[Original review, November 2008]
This book blew me away... I hadn't been paying attention, and had missed a scientific revolution that had happened right under my nose! To cut to the chase: either someone created the Universe expressly to make it suitable for living beings, or there are lots of universes, and we just happen to be in one of the rare ones that support life. Right now, there don't seem to be many other serious alternatives.
If you have trouble believing this, get Rees's excellent book. It will change the way you think about things.
_______________________________
[Postscript, December 2008]
I was just looking at Trevor's review, and thought I would update my own. Here are a couple more thoughts. First, much as I hate saying it, the creationists have a stronger position now than they've had for the last 300 years. There's something really odd about the way the physical constants are so finely tuned. Some of them need to be correct to multiple decimal places. Of course, when I say "creationists", I don't mean people who claim the world was made 10,000 years ago. I mean the faction who agree that most of science is correct, but want some Creator to have started the whole thing off.
I don't see that it's a real counter-argument that God wouldn't have anything to do for the next 13 billion years. Maybe time passes very differently for Him. Maybe He isn't really at all interested in what we're up to, and is only omnipotent and omniscient in a narrow technical sense. Suppose, as an extreme example, that our whole universe was a simulation that some student had set up as a term project in the university's quantum computer. We see 13 billion years, but from His point of view He is running us over the weekend. He's an ordinary 19 year old, He's only doing it to pass Cosmology 101, and He even copied the critical parameter settings from a friend as some students do. I don't actually see why it's inconsistent with the observed data! There could be a short story in this.
I'm sorry if religious people find the above horribly blasphemous. All I'm saying is: one explanation of the facts is that the universe was created, but we can deduce nothing at all from that about the nature of the Creator.
_______________________________
[Postscript, August 2012]
I have read a good deal more cosmology since I first came across Just Six Numbers in 2006, and thought I would re-read it to see what difference this had made. I'm pleased to say that the book still comes across a fine piece of work, and if you want to get a quick introduction to cosmology I strongly recommend it. The writing is excellent.
It was published in 1999. Rees made some predictions about what might happen over the next ten years. I was interested to see how they had worked out:
Prediction 1. Mainly thanks to the upcoming WMAP satellite, we would have much better values for 惟, 蚂 and Q (roughly, the extent to which space is curved, the strength of Dark Energy, and the graininess of the universe). 惟 would probably turn out to be 1 (flat space), and Q would be about 10^-5.
This definitely came out as he said it would. If anything, we understand the large-scale structure of the universe better than we expected.
Prediction 2. We would know what "dark matter" is made of.
Alas, we still don't. I am not even sure if we are significantly closer to finding out.
Prediction 3. We would have a solid "Theory of Everything" which unified the four forces of nature, and which would probably be based on superstring theory.
This has also failed to happen - though we have at least confirmed that the Higgs particle exists, which makes his scenarios for the very early universe a little less speculative.
_______________________________
[Postscript, September 2018]
And another update:
Prediction 1. Mainly thanks to the upcoming WMAP satellite, we would have much better values for 惟, 蚂 and Q (roughly, the extent to which space is curved, the strength of Dark Energy, and the graininess of the universe). 惟 would probably turn out to be 1 (flat space), and Q would be about 10^-5.
This has all worked out 100%.
Prediction 2. We would know what "dark matter" is made of.
We still don't know. Experiments to try and detect hypothetical dark matter particles have not produced any conclusive results. There is a decent summary of the situation as of early 2014 in the second half of Freese's The Cosmic Cocktail , but none of the optimistic predictions there have been fulfilled.
One interesting new idea has turned up following the 2016 LIGO gravitational wave results: it's just about possible that the dark matter could consist of large primordial black holes, of the kind found by LIGO. But this idea isn't very popular.
Prediction 3. We would have a solid "Theory of Everything" which unified the four forces of nature, and which would probably be based on superstring theory.
Superstring theory is not doing well. The predicted supersymmetric partners have failed to show up at the LHC. While they haven't been completely excluded by experiment, most people are now assuming that they aren't there.
Loop Quantum Gravity has however become considerably more respectable. There's a good summary of that in Rovelli's Reality is Not What It Seems .
This book blew me away... I hadn't been paying attention, and had missed a scientific revolution that had happened right under my nose! To cut to the chase: either someone created the Universe expressly to make it suitable for living beings, or there are lots of universes, and we just happen to be in one of the rare ones that support life. Right now, there don't seem to be many other serious alternatives.
If you have trouble believing this, get Rees's excellent book. It will change the way you think about things.
_______________________________
[Postscript, December 2008]
I was just looking at Trevor's review, and thought I would update my own. Here are a couple more thoughts. First, much as I hate saying it, the creationists have a stronger position now than they've had for the last 300 years. There's something really odd about the way the physical constants are so finely tuned. Some of them need to be correct to multiple decimal places. Of course, when I say "creationists", I don't mean people who claim the world was made 10,000 years ago. I mean the faction who agree that most of science is correct, but want some Creator to have started the whole thing off.
I don't see that it's a real counter-argument that God wouldn't have anything to do for the next 13 billion years. Maybe time passes very differently for Him. Maybe He isn't really at all interested in what we're up to, and is only omnipotent and omniscient in a narrow technical sense. Suppose, as an extreme example, that our whole universe was a simulation that some student had set up as a term project in the university's quantum computer. We see 13 billion years, but from His point of view He is running us over the weekend. He's an ordinary 19 year old, He's only doing it to pass Cosmology 101, and He even copied the critical parameter settings from a friend as some students do. I don't actually see why it's inconsistent with the observed data! There could be a short story in this.
I'm sorry if religious people find the above horribly blasphemous. All I'm saying is: one explanation of the facts is that the universe was created, but we can deduce nothing at all from that about the nature of the Creator.
_______________________________
[Postscript, August 2012]
I have read a good deal more cosmology since I first came across Just Six Numbers in 2006, and thought I would re-read it to see what difference this had made. I'm pleased to say that the book still comes across a fine piece of work, and if you want to get a quick introduction to cosmology I strongly recommend it. The writing is excellent.
It was published in 1999. Rees made some predictions about what might happen over the next ten years. I was interested to see how they had worked out:
Prediction 1. Mainly thanks to the upcoming WMAP satellite, we would have much better values for 惟, 蚂 and Q (roughly, the extent to which space is curved, the strength of Dark Energy, and the graininess of the universe). 惟 would probably turn out to be 1 (flat space), and Q would be about 10^-5.
This definitely came out as he said it would. If anything, we understand the large-scale structure of the universe better than we expected.
Prediction 2. We would know what "dark matter" is made of.
Alas, we still don't. I am not even sure if we are significantly closer to finding out.
Prediction 3. We would have a solid "Theory of Everything" which unified the four forces of nature, and which would probably be based on superstring theory.
This has also failed to happen - though we have at least confirmed that the Higgs particle exists, which makes his scenarios for the very early universe a little less speculative.
_______________________________
[Postscript, September 2018]
And another update:
Prediction 1. Mainly thanks to the upcoming WMAP satellite, we would have much better values for 惟, 蚂 and Q (roughly, the extent to which space is curved, the strength of Dark Energy, and the graininess of the universe). 惟 would probably turn out to be 1 (flat space), and Q would be about 10^-5.
This has all worked out 100%.
Prediction 2. We would know what "dark matter" is made of.
We still don't know. Experiments to try and detect hypothetical dark matter particles have not produced any conclusive results. There is a decent summary of the situation as of early 2014 in the second half of Freese's The Cosmic Cocktail , but none of the optimistic predictions there have been fulfilled.
One interesting new idea has turned up following the 2016 LIGO gravitational wave results: it's just about possible that the dark matter could consist of large primordial black holes, of the kind found by LIGO. But this idea isn't very popular.
Prediction 3. We would have a solid "Theory of Everything" which unified the four forces of nature, and which would probably be based on superstring theory.
Superstring theory is not doing well. The predicted supersymmetric partners have failed to show up at the LHC. While they haven't been completely excluded by experiment, most people are now assuming that they aren't there.
Loop Quantum Gravity has however become considerably more respectable. There's a good summary of that in Rovelli's Reality is Not What It Seems .
February 5, 2008
Rees is an interesting man - I went to a lecture by him years ago where he explained his theory of the six numbers. Essentially he says that if you were to change a few numbers - the force of gravity, say, or the electric charge - the universe would be completely different. It is interesting that the universe seems to be pretty nicely set up for life to evolve and even little changes in these fundamental numbers would make life as we know it impossible.
I always have problems with this sort of argument. My main problem is that we are clearly here. My next problem is that the religious immediately take talk like this as some sort of confirmation that god was the setter of these constants. It never seems to strike them that if this is the only role their god has, god pity him. If his entire involvement with the universe is turning a few dials thirteen billion years ago and then waiting around - I can only hope he had a few good books to read as all this universe stuff played out.
The point that Rees makes that is very interesting is that there are two answers to the question - why those numbers and not others? One is, "Well, that's just the way it is." Which is pretty unsatisfying. We want more than 'because' as an answer.
Another answer to why those numbers and not others is that there must be some more fundamental necessity for these numbers to be the numbers in which the universe is 'constructed' - that these numbers 'need' to be these numbers for reasons we don't yet understand.
I hope he is right here - that there is a deeper reason we are able to grasp and understand that is just out of reach of us at present. But we have no reason to believe this is the case and that all of these numbers just happened to be the way they are by chance.
I always have problems with this sort of argument. My main problem is that we are clearly here. My next problem is that the religious immediately take talk like this as some sort of confirmation that god was the setter of these constants. It never seems to strike them that if this is the only role their god has, god pity him. If his entire involvement with the universe is turning a few dials thirteen billion years ago and then waiting around - I can only hope he had a few good books to read as all this universe stuff played out.
The point that Rees makes that is very interesting is that there are two answers to the question - why those numbers and not others? One is, "Well, that's just the way it is." Which is pretty unsatisfying. We want more than 'because' as an answer.
Another answer to why those numbers and not others is that there must be some more fundamental necessity for these numbers to be the numbers in which the universe is 'constructed' - that these numbers 'need' to be these numbers for reasons we don't yet understand.
I hope he is right here - that there is a deeper reason we are able to grasp and understand that is just out of reach of us at present. But we have no reason to believe this is the case and that all of these numbers just happened to be the way they are by chance.
March 15, 2015
Cosmology 101
[Strictly for Cosmology amateurs]
Syllabus as follows:
- Read Rees' book thoroughly.
- Write an essay in appreciation that elucidates the crucial importance of physical constants.
- Submit three reports on the current state of understanding and how they have evolved in any of the major constants touched upon in the book
- Bonus assignment: Search out one popular science book that has managed to cover in 100s of pages what Rees covers with lucidity in a few scores.
- Extra Bonus Assignment: Pop over and read Prof. Manny's and Trevor's goodreads pieces and present your thoughts concisely (in less than 100 words) as comments. If either of them considers your comment intelligent enough to reply to, you can be sure of an A.
Relevant Links:
1.
2.
[Strictly for Cosmology amateurs]
Syllabus as follows:
- Read Rees' book thoroughly.
- Write an essay in appreciation that elucidates the crucial importance of physical constants.
- Submit three reports on the current state of understanding and how they have evolved in any of the major constants touched upon in the book
- Bonus assignment: Search out one popular science book that has managed to cover in 100s of pages what Rees covers with lucidity in a few scores.
- Extra Bonus Assignment: Pop over and read Prof. Manny's and Trevor's goodreads pieces and present your thoughts concisely (in less than 100 words) as comments. If either of them considers your comment intelligent enough to reply to, you can be sure of an A.
Relevant Links:
1.
2.
October 23, 2015
This four-star rating is actually a compromise between the intrinsic value and merits of this book (5 star) and how much I personally enjoyed reading it (3 star).
This is a cute, very readable and superbly well written introductory book at beginners level. A fine example of popular science book, encapsulating several interesting concepts in just a little over 170 pages, with little oversimplification.
Had I come across this book 15 years ago, I would have appreciated it immensely more. Reading it now, unfortunately it did not give me much, to be honest - but this is no fault of the book per se.
It must also be said that some parts are a little dated (unavoidably so, considering the significant progress since the book was published), but it is still a very pleasurable, light read with many interesting insights.
Highly recommended as a easy, very readable introductory book, to anybody interested in the phenomenon of the apparent "fine tuning" of some of the major physical/cosmological "constants" that allowed for the development of complexity (and ultimately life) in the Universe.
August 15, 2016
After we've had a few drinks my fundamentalist friends will often bring the talk round to The Creation just to have some fun at my expense.
They laugh at my belief in a "big bang", make ribald jokes about my "sudden, enormous inflation" and tell me I don't have much energy at all these days let alone any "dark energy". I've only myself to blame for not keeping up with the latest in cosmology. I tend to end up mumbling something about micro-wave background radiation before heading off quickly to the bar to order the next round.
Well, rounds aren't cheap anymore, so I thought I should do something to remedy the situation. This book is a great help to anyone wanting to bring some modern cosmology into the metaphysical discussions that inevitably crop up on pub night and I've written this review to help me crib a few points.
Thanks to the excellent explanation in this book I could get together a summary of key parameters underlying the whole of material existence which I can take a look at in the pub toilets on my iphone next time we're out drinking. My knowledge of the first few nano-seconds at the birth of the universe should be enough to blow their Ark out of the water. Drinks on the faithful for a change!
N - the relative strength of the force of gravity compared to the electrostatic forces of attraction or repulsion, with the force of gravity being about ten to the thirty-sixth power weaker. If gravity was much stronger galaxies would form more quickly and be more dense resulting in greater difficulty forming stable planetary systems; stellar lifetimes would be shorter, potentially not allowing sufficient time to evolve complex biological molecules.
e - nuclear efficiency - the percentage of mass of a helium atom compared to the mass of its separate parts (i.e. two protons and neutrons). e is a measure of the amount of the energy generated from fusion into helium given Einstein's well known formula. If e were too low, deuterium - an important intermediate in helium fusion - would not form. If e were too high then protons could join directly without neutrons and in such quantity that little hydrogen would be available to form stars and then through stellar evolution for the formation of other elements required for evolution of biological molecules.
Omega - the ratio of actual matter in the universe to the critical amount of matter to balance expansion of the universe with contraction due to gravity. If omega is less than one the universe will continue expanding indefinitely and too rapidly to allow galaxy and star formation and hence development of life; more than one and the universe will ultimately begin to contract, again too fast for stellar evolution and hence life to develop.
The rate of expansion suggests strongly that omega was either very close to one at the time of the big bang (i.e. differing from one by one part in ten to the fifteenth) or raises the question as to whether there is some theoretical reason that omega should have been one at the time of the big bang.
Observable matter in the universe suggests omega is well below one, leading to the search for "dark matter". But what is "dark matter"? Candidate matter includes "brown dwarf" stars, mini-black holes or some type of as yet unknown particle. As an aside anti-matter seems relatively unlikely to be a candidate for dark matter: an asymmetry was found in the rate of decay of the k particle which implies that if a similar asymmetry exists in the strong nuclear force there may have been a surplus of matter after quark vs anti-quark annihilation during the early stage of the big bang. In fact the ratio of photons to protons observed in the universe is not inconsistent with the magnitude of this asymmetry.
Lambda - Einstein's famous cosmological constant reborn - the constant introduced into Einstein's equations at which "cosmic repulsion" exactly balanced gravity and would reflect the net effect of energy within empty space. There is strong but not overwhelming evidence for lambda being low but non zero. If lambda was too large repulsion would have overwhelmed gravity in early stages of the universe, again preventing galaxy and star evolution and the formation of life.
Q - a measure of how tightly matter is bound in clusters of galaxies rather than being evenly spread, measured as the ratio of the energy required to disperse matter over the rest mass energy of the matter concerned (i.e. mass times the speed of light squared energy). Q is low (10e-5) implying a relatively homogeneous universe. However if Q was too low the gravitational force required to form aggregates of stars and galaxies would not be strong enough to overcome repulsive forces of radiation. Conversely if too high then matter would aggregate in forms that would not be able to sustain life - perhaps vast black holes that would emit gamma radiation as they grow larger.
D - the number of dimensions, being four - three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. With three spatial dimensions forces of gravity and electro-magnetic forces will follow an inverse square law - as you double the distance the force will drop by a quarter. Mathematically speaking planetary orbits are stable under an inverse square law; a slight change in speed will bring about a correspondingly slight change in orbit. However under an inverse cube (or higher) law orbits would not be stable; if your orbit was slowed down or sped up from an asteroid collision the changes are you would spiral down into the sun or off to outer space. How fascinating.
They laugh at my belief in a "big bang", make ribald jokes about my "sudden, enormous inflation" and tell me I don't have much energy at all these days let alone any "dark energy". I've only myself to blame for not keeping up with the latest in cosmology. I tend to end up mumbling something about micro-wave background radiation before heading off quickly to the bar to order the next round.
Well, rounds aren't cheap anymore, so I thought I should do something to remedy the situation. This book is a great help to anyone wanting to bring some modern cosmology into the metaphysical discussions that inevitably crop up on pub night and I've written this review to help me crib a few points.
Thanks to the excellent explanation in this book I could get together a summary of key parameters underlying the whole of material existence which I can take a look at in the pub toilets on my iphone next time we're out drinking. My knowledge of the first few nano-seconds at the birth of the universe should be enough to blow their Ark out of the water. Drinks on the faithful for a change!
N - the relative strength of the force of gravity compared to the electrostatic forces of attraction or repulsion, with the force of gravity being about ten to the thirty-sixth power weaker. If gravity was much stronger galaxies would form more quickly and be more dense resulting in greater difficulty forming stable planetary systems; stellar lifetimes would be shorter, potentially not allowing sufficient time to evolve complex biological molecules.
e - nuclear efficiency - the percentage of mass of a helium atom compared to the mass of its separate parts (i.e. two protons and neutrons). e is a measure of the amount of the energy generated from fusion into helium given Einstein's well known formula. If e were too low, deuterium - an important intermediate in helium fusion - would not form. If e were too high then protons could join directly without neutrons and in such quantity that little hydrogen would be available to form stars and then through stellar evolution for the formation of other elements required for evolution of biological molecules.
Omega - the ratio of actual matter in the universe to the critical amount of matter to balance expansion of the universe with contraction due to gravity. If omega is less than one the universe will continue expanding indefinitely and too rapidly to allow galaxy and star formation and hence development of life; more than one and the universe will ultimately begin to contract, again too fast for stellar evolution and hence life to develop.
The rate of expansion suggests strongly that omega was either very close to one at the time of the big bang (i.e. differing from one by one part in ten to the fifteenth) or raises the question as to whether there is some theoretical reason that omega should have been one at the time of the big bang.
Observable matter in the universe suggests omega is well below one, leading to the search for "dark matter". But what is "dark matter"? Candidate matter includes "brown dwarf" stars, mini-black holes or some type of as yet unknown particle. As an aside anti-matter seems relatively unlikely to be a candidate for dark matter: an asymmetry was found in the rate of decay of the k particle which implies that if a similar asymmetry exists in the strong nuclear force there may have been a surplus of matter after quark vs anti-quark annihilation during the early stage of the big bang. In fact the ratio of photons to protons observed in the universe is not inconsistent with the magnitude of this asymmetry.
Lambda - Einstein's famous cosmological constant reborn - the constant introduced into Einstein's equations at which "cosmic repulsion" exactly balanced gravity and would reflect the net effect of energy within empty space. There is strong but not overwhelming evidence for lambda being low but non zero. If lambda was too large repulsion would have overwhelmed gravity in early stages of the universe, again preventing galaxy and star evolution and the formation of life.
Q - a measure of how tightly matter is bound in clusters of galaxies rather than being evenly spread, measured as the ratio of the energy required to disperse matter over the rest mass energy of the matter concerned (i.e. mass times the speed of light squared energy). Q is low (10e-5) implying a relatively homogeneous universe. However if Q was too low the gravitational force required to form aggregates of stars and galaxies would not be strong enough to overcome repulsive forces of radiation. Conversely if too high then matter would aggregate in forms that would not be able to sustain life - perhaps vast black holes that would emit gamma radiation as they grow larger.
D - the number of dimensions, being four - three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. With three spatial dimensions forces of gravity and electro-magnetic forces will follow an inverse square law - as you double the distance the force will drop by a quarter. Mathematically speaking planetary orbits are stable under an inverse square law; a slight change in speed will bring about a correspondingly slight change in orbit. However under an inverse cube (or higher) law orbits would not be stable; if your orbit was slowed down or sped up from an asteroid collision the changes are you would spiral down into the sun or off to outer space. How fascinating.
October 12, 2017
賰鬲丕亘 賲匕賴賱 賵賲賲鬲毓 噩丿丕賸 賷兀禺匕賰 賮賷 乇丨賱丞 卮賷賯丞 賮賷 賲丕囟賷 賵丨丕囟乇 賵賲爻鬲賯亘賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳貙 賱丕 鬲賯乇兀 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿匕丕 賱賲 鬲賰賳 賲爻鬲毓丿丕賸 匕賴賳賷丕賸 賱賮賴賲 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丕鬲 賵丕賱賮賷夭賷丕亍 賵廿毓丕丿丞 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱噩賲賱丞 毓卮乇 賲乇丕鬲 丨鬲賶 鬲賮賴賲 賲毓賳賶 賰賱丕賲 丕賱賲丐賱賮.
爻鬲賲賵鬲 卮賲爻賳丕 賮賷 睾囟賵賳 佶 賲賱賷丕乇丕鬲 爻賳賴 賵賲毓賴丕 丕賱兀乇囟貙 賵爻鬲鬲噩賴 賳丨賵 賲噩乇丞 "兀賳丿乇賵賲賷丿丕" 賱鬲乇鬲胤賲 賲毓賴丕 賵賲賳 賵乇丕卅賴丕 賰賱 賲噩乇丞 丿乇亘 丕賱鬲亘丕賳丞貙 鬲賱賰 丕賱鬲賰賴賳丕鬲 亘毓賷丿丞 丕賱兀賲丿 賲賵孬賵賯丞 賱丕毓鬲賲丕丿賴丕 毓賱賶 賲購爻賱賲丞 毓賲賱 賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱賮賷夭賷丕亍 禺賱丕賱 丕賱禺賲爻丞 賲賱賷丕乇丕鬲 毓丕賲 丕賱賯丕丿賲丞 賰賲丕 賰丕賳鬲 賰匕賱賰 賲賳匕 佶-佟贍 賲賱賷丕乇丕鬲 爻賳丞貙 爻賷鬲賵爻毓 丕賱賰賵賳 廿賱賶 丕賱兀亘丿 賱賰賳 賱賳 鬲賰賵賳 賴賳丕賰 丨賷丕丞貙 賵賱賳 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賱賳噩賵賲 賵丕賱賲噩乇丕鬲 爻丨亘 亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱噩丕匕亘賷丞 賵賲賳 孬賲 丕賱鬲賰孬賮貙 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賵爻毓 兀賳 賱丕 賷賰賵賳 亘胤賷卅丕賸 噩丿丕賸 賵廿賱丕 爻賷鬲賯賱氐 丕賱賰賵賳 毓賱賶 賳賮爻賴 賲賳 噩丿賷丿 賵亘爻乇毓丞 賰亘賷乇丞 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱丕賳爻丨丕賯 丕賱賰亘賷乇.
賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賱丿賰鬲賵乇 賲丕乇鬲賳 乇賷爻 毓賳 爻鬲丞 兀乇賯丕賲 賰賵賳賷丞 鬲丨丿丿 賰賷賮 賷鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賰賵賳:
佟- N: 丕賱賯賵賶 丕賱賰賴乇亘賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲乇亘胤 丕賱匕乇丕鬲 亘亘毓囟賴丕 賲賯爻賵賲丞 毓賱賶 賯賵賶 丕賱鬲噩丕匕亘 亘賷賳 丕賱匕乇丕鬲貙 賱賵 賳賯氐鬲 兀氐賮丕乇丕賸 賯賱賷賱丞 賱賲丕 丕爻鬲胤丕毓 丕賱賰賵賳 兀賳 賷賳賲賵 廿賱賶 丨噩賲 兀賰亘乇 賲賳 丕賱丨卮乇丞 賵賱賰丕賳 毓賲乇賴 賯氐賷乇丕賸.
佗- E: 賷丨丿丿 賲鬲丕賳丞 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丕賱兀賳賵賷丞 亘亘毓囟賴丕 賵賷鬲丨賰賲 賮賷 賰賷賮賷丞 鬲丨賵賷賱 丕賱賳噩賵賲 賱賱賴賷丿乇賵噩賷賳 廿賱賶 亘丕賯賷 匕乇丕鬲 丕賱噩丿賵賱 丕賱丿賵乇賷貙 賱賵 賯賱鬲 兀賵 夭丕丿鬲 賯賷賲鬲賴 賯賱賷賱丕賸 賱賲丕 賵噩丿 賴匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳貙 賮賱賲 賷丨鬲噩 丕賱禺丕賱賯 廿賱賶 禺賱賯 侃佗 賳賵毓丕賸 賲禺鬲賱賮丕賸 賲賳 丕賱毓賳丕氐乇貙 賮丕賱丨賱賯丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賮賷 爻賱爻賱丞 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱毓賳丕氐乇 賴賵 鬲丨賵賱 丕賱賴賷丿乇賵丨賷賳 廿賱賶 賴賷賱賷賵賲貙 賮賱賵 夭丕丿鬲 E 賱賲丕 亘賯賷 賴賷丿乇賵噩賷賳 賱賷賵賮乇 賵賯賵丿丕賸 賮賷 丕賱賳噩賵賲 丕賱毓丕丿賷丞 賵賱賲丕 亘賯賷 賴賷丿乇賵噩賷賳 賱賷賰賵賳 丕賱賲丕亍貙 賵廿匕丕 賯賱鬲 E 賱賯賱 毓丿丿 丕賱匕乇丕鬲 丕賱賲爻鬲賯乇丞 毓賳 侃佗 毓賳氐乇丕賸 賱賷賯賵丿 匕賱賰 廿賱賶 賵噩賵丿 賰賷賲賷丕亍 賮賯賷乇丞.
伲- 兀賵賲賷睾丕: 賷賯賷爻 賰賲賷丞 丕賱賲丕丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賰賵賳 賲賳 賲噩乇丕鬲 賵睾丕夭丕鬲 賲賳鬲卮乇丞 賵賲丕丿丞 賲馗賱賲丞貙 賱賵 賰丕賳鬲 賯賷賲鬲賴丕 兀毓賱賶 賱丕賳賴丕乇 丕賱賰賵賰亘 賲賳 夭賲賳 亘毓賷丿貙 廿賳 爻乇毓鬲賴丕 丕賱鬲賲丿丿 丕賱兀賵賱賷 鬲亘丿賵 賲囟亘賵胤丞 亘毓賳丕賷丞.
伽- 賱賲丿丕: 丕賱噩丕匕亘賷丞 丕賱賰賵賳賷丞 丕賱賲囟丕丿丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲丨賰賲 賮賷 鬲賲丿丿 賰賵賳賳丕貙 賱賵 賰丕賳鬲 賯賷賲鬲賴丕 賰亘賷乇丞 賱兀賵賯賮 鬲兀孬賷乇賴丕 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱賲噩乇丕鬲 賵丕賱賳噩賵賲 賵賱鬲毓胤賱 丕賱鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賰賵賳賷 賯亘賱 兀賳 賷亘丿兀.
佶- Q: 丕賱賳爻亘丞 亘賷賳 胤丕賯鬲賷賳 兀爻丕爻賷鬲賷賳貙 賱賵 賰丕賳鬲 兀氐睾乇 賱禺賲賱 丕賱賰賵賳 賵氐丕乇 禺丕賱賷丕賸貙 賵賱賵 賰亘購乇鬲 丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱禺乇亘 丕賱賰賵賳 賵氐丕乇 毓丕氐賮丕賸 賵賱爻丕丿鬲 丕賱孬賯賵亘 丕賱爻賵丿丕亍 丕賱賴丕卅賱丞 賵賱賲丕 鬲賲賰賳 賳馗丕賲 卮賲爻賷 賲賳 丕賱亘賯丕亍 丨賷丕賸.
佴- D: 丕賱兀亘毓丕丿 丕賱賮乇丕睾賷丞 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲貙 賱賵 賯賱鬲 兀賵 夭丕丿鬲 賱賲丕 賵噩丿 賴匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳.
廿賳 丕賱鬲丨丿賷 丕賱賰丕賲賳 賮賷 鬲賵囟賷丨 賰賷賮 噩賲毓鬲 丕賱匕乇丕鬲 賳賮爻賴丕 毓賱賶 爻胤丨 丕賱兀乇囟 賱鬲卮賰賱 賰丕卅賳丕鬲 丨賷丞 賲毓賯丿丞 亘賲丕 賷賰賮賷 賱鬲鬲賮賰乇 賮賷 賲賳卮卅賴丕 賱賴賵 兀賰孬乇 鬲丨丿 賲禺賷賮 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱賰賵賳貙 賵廿匕丕 賱賲 賷鬲賯亘賱 丕賱賲乇亍 丨噩丞 丕賱毓賳丕賷丞 丕賱廿賱賴賷丞 賱賱賰賵賳 賮賴賳丕賰 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇 鬲禺賲賷賳賷丞 賷丿毓賵 廿賱賷賴丕 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賵賴賷 賰賵賳 丕賳賮噩丕乇賳丕 丕賱賰亘賷乇 賯丿 賱丕 賷賰賵賳 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賮賳丨賳 賯丿 賳賰賵賳 匕乇丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賲禺鬲丕乇丞 賲賳 兀賰賵丕賳 賲鬲毓丿丿丞 賱丕賳賴丕卅賷丞貙 賷乇賶 丕賱賲丐賱賮 兀賳 賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱兀賰賵丕賳 丕賱賲鬲毓丿丿丞 鬲丿禺賱 亘噩丿丕乇丞 囟賲賳 賳胤丕賯 丕賱毓賱賲 乇睾賲 賰賵賳賴丕 睾賷乇 賲丐賰丿丞 丨丕賱賷丕賸貙 賵鬲馗賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賳馗乇賷丞 賵賳馗乇賷丞 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賰賵賳 丕賱賲亘賰乇 賲賳 鬲丨丿賷丕鬲 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱賲賯亘賱.
爻鬲賲賵鬲 卮賲爻賳丕 賮賷 睾囟賵賳 佶 賲賱賷丕乇丕鬲 爻賳賴 賵賲毓賴丕 丕賱兀乇囟貙 賵爻鬲鬲噩賴 賳丨賵 賲噩乇丞 "兀賳丿乇賵賲賷丿丕" 賱鬲乇鬲胤賲 賲毓賴丕 賵賲賳 賵乇丕卅賴丕 賰賱 賲噩乇丞 丿乇亘 丕賱鬲亘丕賳丞貙 鬲賱賰 丕賱鬲賰賴賳丕鬲 亘毓賷丿丞 丕賱兀賲丿 賲賵孬賵賯丞 賱丕毓鬲賲丕丿賴丕 毓賱賶 賲購爻賱賲丞 毓賲賱 賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱賮賷夭賷丕亍 禺賱丕賱 丕賱禺賲爻丞 賲賱賷丕乇丕鬲 毓丕賲 丕賱賯丕丿賲丞 賰賲丕 賰丕賳鬲 賰匕賱賰 賲賳匕 佶-佟贍 賲賱賷丕乇丕鬲 爻賳丞貙 爻賷鬲賵爻毓 丕賱賰賵賳 廿賱賶 丕賱兀亘丿 賱賰賳 賱賳 鬲賰賵賳 賴賳丕賰 丨賷丕丞貙 賵賱賳 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賱賳噩賵賲 賵丕賱賲噩乇丕鬲 爻丨亘 亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱噩丕匕亘賷丞 賵賲賳 孬賲 丕賱鬲賰孬賮貙 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賵爻毓 兀賳 賱丕 賷賰賵賳 亘胤賷卅丕賸 噩丿丕賸 賵廿賱丕 爻賷鬲賯賱氐 丕賱賰賵賳 毓賱賶 賳賮爻賴 賲賳 噩丿賷丿 賵亘爻乇毓丞 賰亘賷乇丞 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱丕賳爻丨丕賯 丕賱賰亘賷乇.
賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賱丿賰鬲賵乇 賲丕乇鬲賳 乇賷爻 毓賳 爻鬲丞 兀乇賯丕賲 賰賵賳賷丞 鬲丨丿丿 賰賷賮 賷鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賰賵賳:
佟- N: 丕賱賯賵賶 丕賱賰賴乇亘賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲乇亘胤 丕賱匕乇丕鬲 亘亘毓囟賴丕 賲賯爻賵賲丞 毓賱賶 賯賵賶 丕賱鬲噩丕匕亘 亘賷賳 丕賱匕乇丕鬲貙 賱賵 賳賯氐鬲 兀氐賮丕乇丕賸 賯賱賷賱丞 賱賲丕 丕爻鬲胤丕毓 丕賱賰賵賳 兀賳 賷賳賲賵 廿賱賶 丨噩賲 兀賰亘乇 賲賳 丕賱丨卮乇丞 賵賱賰丕賳 毓賲乇賴 賯氐賷乇丕賸.
佗- E: 賷丨丿丿 賲鬲丕賳丞 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丕賱兀賳賵賷丞 亘亘毓囟賴丕 賵賷鬲丨賰賲 賮賷 賰賷賮賷丞 鬲丨賵賷賱 丕賱賳噩賵賲 賱賱賴賷丿乇賵噩賷賳 廿賱賶 亘丕賯賷 匕乇丕鬲 丕賱噩丿賵賱 丕賱丿賵乇賷貙 賱賵 賯賱鬲 兀賵 夭丕丿鬲 賯賷賲鬲賴 賯賱賷賱丕賸 賱賲丕 賵噩丿 賴匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳貙 賮賱賲 賷丨鬲噩 丕賱禺丕賱賯 廿賱賶 禺賱賯 侃佗 賳賵毓丕賸 賲禺鬲賱賮丕賸 賲賳 丕賱毓賳丕氐乇貙 賮丕賱丨賱賯丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賮賷 爻賱爻賱丞 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱毓賳丕氐乇 賴賵 鬲丨賵賱 丕賱賴賷丿乇賵丨賷賳 廿賱賶 賴賷賱賷賵賲貙 賮賱賵 夭丕丿鬲 E 賱賲丕 亘賯賷 賴賷丿乇賵噩賷賳 賱賷賵賮乇 賵賯賵丿丕賸 賮賷 丕賱賳噩賵賲 丕賱毓丕丿賷丞 賵賱賲丕 亘賯賷 賴賷丿乇賵噩賷賳 賱賷賰賵賳 丕賱賲丕亍貙 賵廿匕丕 賯賱鬲 E 賱賯賱 毓丿丿 丕賱匕乇丕鬲 丕賱賲爻鬲賯乇丞 毓賳 侃佗 毓賳氐乇丕賸 賱賷賯賵丿 匕賱賰 廿賱賶 賵噩賵丿 賰賷賲賷丕亍 賮賯賷乇丞.
伲- 兀賵賲賷睾丕: 賷賯賷爻 賰賲賷丞 丕賱賲丕丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賰賵賳 賲賳 賲噩乇丕鬲 賵睾丕夭丕鬲 賲賳鬲卮乇丞 賵賲丕丿丞 賲馗賱賲丞貙 賱賵 賰丕賳鬲 賯賷賲鬲賴丕 兀毓賱賶 賱丕賳賴丕乇 丕賱賰賵賰亘 賲賳 夭賲賳 亘毓賷丿貙 廿賳 爻乇毓鬲賴丕 丕賱鬲賲丿丿 丕賱兀賵賱賷 鬲亘丿賵 賲囟亘賵胤丞 亘毓賳丕賷丞.
伽- 賱賲丿丕: 丕賱噩丕匕亘賷丞 丕賱賰賵賳賷丞 丕賱賲囟丕丿丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲丨賰賲 賮賷 鬲賲丿丿 賰賵賳賳丕貙 賱賵 賰丕賳鬲 賯賷賲鬲賴丕 賰亘賷乇丞 賱兀賵賯賮 鬲兀孬賷乇賴丕 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱賲噩乇丕鬲 賵丕賱賳噩賵賲 賵賱鬲毓胤賱 丕賱鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賰賵賳賷 賯亘賱 兀賳 賷亘丿兀.
佶- Q: 丕賱賳爻亘丞 亘賷賳 胤丕賯鬲賷賳 兀爻丕爻賷鬲賷賳貙 賱賵 賰丕賳鬲 兀氐睾乇 賱禺賲賱 丕賱賰賵賳 賵氐丕乇 禺丕賱賷丕賸貙 賵賱賵 賰亘購乇鬲 丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱禺乇亘 丕賱賰賵賳 賵氐丕乇 毓丕氐賮丕賸 賵賱爻丕丿鬲 丕賱孬賯賵亘 丕賱爻賵丿丕亍 丕賱賴丕卅賱丞 賵賱賲丕 鬲賲賰賳 賳馗丕賲 卮賲爻賷 賲賳 丕賱亘賯丕亍 丨賷丕賸.
佴- D: 丕賱兀亘毓丕丿 丕賱賮乇丕睾賷丞 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲貙 賱賵 賯賱鬲 兀賵 夭丕丿鬲 賱賲丕 賵噩丿 賴匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳.
廿賳 丕賱鬲丨丿賷 丕賱賰丕賲賳 賮賷 鬲賵囟賷丨 賰賷賮 噩賲毓鬲 丕賱匕乇丕鬲 賳賮爻賴丕 毓賱賶 爻胤丨 丕賱兀乇囟 賱鬲卮賰賱 賰丕卅賳丕鬲 丨賷丞 賲毓賯丿丞 亘賲丕 賷賰賮賷 賱鬲鬲賮賰乇 賮賷 賲賳卮卅賴丕 賱賴賵 兀賰孬乇 鬲丨丿 賲禺賷賮 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱賰賵賳貙 賵廿匕丕 賱賲 賷鬲賯亘賱 丕賱賲乇亍 丨噩丞 丕賱毓賳丕賷丞 丕賱廿賱賴賷丞 賱賱賰賵賳 賮賴賳丕賰 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇 鬲禺賲賷賳賷丞 賷丿毓賵 廿賱賷賴丕 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賵賴賷 賰賵賳 丕賳賮噩丕乇賳丕 丕賱賰亘賷乇 賯丿 賱丕 賷賰賵賳 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賮賳丨賳 賯丿 賳賰賵賳 匕乇丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賲禺鬲丕乇丞 賲賳 兀賰賵丕賳 賲鬲毓丿丿丞 賱丕賳賴丕卅賷丞貙 賷乇賶 丕賱賲丐賱賮 兀賳 賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱兀賰賵丕賳 丕賱賲鬲毓丿丿丞 鬲丿禺賱 亘噩丿丕乇丞 囟賲賳 賳胤丕賯 丕賱毓賱賲 乇睾賲 賰賵賳賴丕 睾賷乇 賲丐賰丿丞 丨丕賱賷丕賸貙 賵鬲馗賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賳馗乇賷丞 賵賳馗乇賷丞 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賰賵賳 丕賱賲亘賰乇 賲賳 鬲丨丿賷丕鬲 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱賲賯亘賱.
February 16, 2019
賱賷爻 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱爻賴賱 賱賰賳賴 賲賮賴賵賲 賵賯乇賷亘 賲賳 睾賷乇 丕賱賲禺鬲氐賷賳.
賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賱丕 賷賳鬲氐乇 賱賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱禺丕賱賯 賵賷鬲乇賰 丕賱亘丕亘 賲賮鬲賵丨丕 兀賲丕賲 賮賰乇丞 丕賱兀賰賵丕賳 丕賱賲鬲毓丿丿丞 亘賱 賷丨丕賵賱 丿毓賲賴丕貙 賱匕丕 賷亘丿賵 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賱丕 兀丿乇賷丕.
賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賱丕 賷賳鬲氐乇 賱賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱禺丕賱賯 賵賷鬲乇賰 丕賱亘丕亘 賲賮鬲賵丨丕 兀賲丕賲 賮賰乇丞 丕賱兀賰賵丕賳 丕賱賲鬲毓丿丿丞 亘賱 賷丨丕賵賱 丿毓賲賴丕貙 賱匕丕 賷亘丿賵 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賱丕 兀丿乇賷丕.
August 2, 2008
I don't hold much respect for "fine-tuning" arguments in relation to cosmology, but the book was a gift, so I felt obligated to give it a try. Also, if one wants to be knowledgeable about this kind of thing, one has to read more than just the stuff that supports one's own ideas.
In his attempt to be accessible to the public, the author does what I consider to be a lot of hand-waving and emphatic gestures rather than actually explaining anything. He also fails at what I think is a basic level of imagination: when he says stuff about how a fundamental number, if it had a different value, would preclude the emergence of life, he's assuming that no other kind of life could exist.
There is some good basic information about cosmology in here, especially with regard to the fundamental forces, but readers would be better off with one of 's books ( or ) if they're looking to actually learn something.
In his attempt to be accessible to the public, the author does what I consider to be a lot of hand-waving and emphatic gestures rather than actually explaining anything. He also fails at what I think is a basic level of imagination: when he says stuff about how a fundamental number, if it had a different value, would preclude the emergence of life, he's assuming that no other kind of life could exist.
There is some good basic information about cosmology in here, especially with regard to the fundamental forces, but readers would be better off with one of 's books ( or ) if they're looking to actually learn something.
December 21, 2018
A book about cosmology but mainly about anthropic cosmolgical principle,weak and strong,the book develops the importance of fine tuning of six,mainly of cosmic significance ,numbers.
This numbers are:
N the relation between the strenht of electrical with regard to the gavitational forc茅.
Epsilon the los of mass or energetic efficiency in the nuclear fussion of protons.
Omega the mass density of our universe.
Lamda the value of cosmic repulsion that acelerates the universe expansi贸n.
Q the ripples or asimetries imprinted in the Big-Bang.
D the number of spatial dimensions 3 of our universe.
The very precise fine tuning of the values of this numbers play a fundamental role in make a universe where complex long lived structures between them the life and inteligent life can exist.
In Font of this fact one can take two positions:
First ,to think that this is not a chance instead it is the fruit of a inteligent design,this the anthropic cosmological principle strong versi贸n.
Second,following the latest ,yet speculative,theories of cosmic inflaction there are infinite inflactionary bubbles generating each one a different universe ,each one with differen phisical laws and constants and the universe we live is so because we are here to see it,this the weak versi贸n of the anthropic cosmological principle.
With regard to all this I Will type two textual paragraphs that I think are important in the philosofy of the book.
"If evolution were rerun,the outcome would be different.Nothing seems to pre-ordain the emergence of inteligence;indeed some leading evolutionists believe that,even if simple life were widespread in the cosmos,inteligence could be exceedingly rare."
"Theorists may,some day,be able to write down fundamental equations governing physical reality.But physics can never explain what breathes fire into the equations,and actualices them in a real cosmos.The fundamental question of "Why is there something rather tan nothing?" remains the province of phylosofers.And even they may be wiser to respond,with Ludwig Wittgenstein,that"whereof one cannot speak,one must be silent.""
I now Will dare to make a ,personal surely fool ,reckoning about the limits of human attempt of answer the ultimate ask of Martin Rees.given that every thought or chain of thougths is a physical state or sucession of physical states of our brain and by that constrined to the basic physical laws of our cosmos it must be a autorefference problem,a sort of Godels theorem that prevents the explanation of the laws inside the laws or the game from inside the game,if so the ultimate ask will be ever unanswered and out of the human ,or other inteligent being inside the universe, reach.
A recomended book for all that would like to take a clear concise introduction to cosmology and its implications.
This numbers are:
N the relation between the strenht of electrical with regard to the gavitational forc茅.
Epsilon the los of mass or energetic efficiency in the nuclear fussion of protons.
Omega the mass density of our universe.
Lamda the value of cosmic repulsion that acelerates the universe expansi贸n.
Q the ripples or asimetries imprinted in the Big-Bang.
D the number of spatial dimensions 3 of our universe.
The very precise fine tuning of the values of this numbers play a fundamental role in make a universe where complex long lived structures between them the life and inteligent life can exist.
In Font of this fact one can take two positions:
First ,to think that this is not a chance instead it is the fruit of a inteligent design,this the anthropic cosmological principle strong versi贸n.
Second,following the latest ,yet speculative,theories of cosmic inflaction there are infinite inflactionary bubbles generating each one a different universe ,each one with differen phisical laws and constants and the universe we live is so because we are here to see it,this the weak versi贸n of the anthropic cosmological principle.
With regard to all this I Will type two textual paragraphs that I think are important in the philosofy of the book.
"If evolution were rerun,the outcome would be different.Nothing seems to pre-ordain the emergence of inteligence;indeed some leading evolutionists believe that,even if simple life were widespread in the cosmos,inteligence could be exceedingly rare."
"Theorists may,some day,be able to write down fundamental equations governing physical reality.But physics can never explain what breathes fire into the equations,and actualices them in a real cosmos.The fundamental question of "Why is there something rather tan nothing?" remains the province of phylosofers.And even they may be wiser to respond,with Ludwig Wittgenstein,that"whereof one cannot speak,one must be silent.""
I now Will dare to make a ,personal surely fool ,reckoning about the limits of human attempt of answer the ultimate ask of Martin Rees.given that every thought or chain of thougths is a physical state or sucession of physical states of our brain and by that constrined to the basic physical laws of our cosmos it must be a autorefference problem,a sort of Godels theorem that prevents the explanation of the laws inside the laws or the game from inside the game,if so the ultimate ask will be ever unanswered and out of the human ,or other inteligent being inside the universe, reach.
A recomended book for all that would like to take a clear concise introduction to cosmology and its implications.
November 25, 2020
趩乇丕 賴爻鬲蹖賲 亘賴 噩丕蹖 丌賳讴賴 賳亘丕卮蹖賲責
蹖讴蹖 丕夭 倬乇爻卮鈥屬囏й� 丕爻丕爻蹖 賮賱爻賮賴 丕爻鬲 .
丕诏乇 丕蹖賳 爻賵丕賱 乇賵 亘爻胤 亘丿賴蹖賲 丿乇賵丕賯毓 鬲賲丕賲蹖 毓賱賵賲 亘丕 賴賲趩蹖賳 爻賵丕賱蹖 乇賵亘乇賵 禺賵丕賴賳丿 卮丿貙 賲孬賱丕 趩乇丕 丨蹖丕鬲 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿貙 趩乇丕 亘蹖诏 亘賳诏 丕鬲賮丕賯 丕賮鬲丕丿 賵 趩乇丕 丕賳爻丕賳 賲賵噩賵丿蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丕爻鬲 賵 睾蹖乇賴. 丕蹖賳 爻賵丕賱丕鬲 倬丕蹖賴貙 卮丕蹖丿 賴蹖趩鈥屭з� 倬丕爻禺蹖 賲賳丕爻亘 倬蹖丿丕 賳讴賳賳丿 丕賲丕 賱乇丿 賲丕乇鬲蹖賳 乇蹖爻貙 丕爻鬲乇賵賱賵噩蹖爻鬲 賵 賲賳噩賲 爻賱胤賳鬲蹖 亘丕 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 賲丕 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿 讴賴 亘毓丿 丕夭 亘蹖诏 亘賳诏 賵 賯亘賱 丕夭 丌睾丕夭 丨蹖丕鬲 趩賴 丕鬲賮丕賯蹖 丕賮鬲丕丿賴 丕爻鬲 鬲丕 卮賲丕 亘鬲賵丕賳蹖丿 亘賴 丕蹖賳 爻賵丕賱丕鬲 賮讴乇 讴賳蹖丿
卮卮 毓丿丿 讴鬲丕亘蹖 賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖 丿乇 丨賵夭賴 毓賲賵賲蹖 丕爻鬲 賵丨丿丕賯賱 倬蹖卮 賳蹖丕夭 丌賳 亘乇丕蹖 賮賴賲 亘賴鬲乇貙 賮蹖夭蹖讴 丿亘蹖乇爻鬲丕賳 丕爻鬲. 噩丕賳 讴賱丕賲 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇亘丕乇賴 鬲毓丕丿賱 賲蹖丕賳 卮卮 毓丿丿蹖 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘж簇� 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 倬丿蹖丿 丌賲丿賳 讴蹖賴丕賳 亘賴 卮讴賱蹖 讴賴 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж驰屬� 卮丿賴鈥屫ж池�. 丿乇賵丕賯毓 丕诏乇 賴乇 讴丿丕賲 丕夭 丕蹖賳 丕毓丿丕丿 讴賲鬲乇 蹖丕 夭蹖丕丿鬲乇 亘賵丿 丕蹖賳 讴蹖賴丕賳 亘賴 卮讴賱 丿蹖诏乇蹖 卮讴賱 賲蹖鈥屭辟佖�.
毓丿丿 丕賵賱 丕倬爻蹖賱賵賳 貙丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲毓乇賮 賳爻亘鬲 賴蹖丿乇賵跇賳 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿賴 亘賴 賴賱蹖賲 丿乇 丕賳賮噩丕乇 亘夭乇诏 賲蹖亘丕卮丿
毓丿丿 丿賵賲 毓丿丿 N 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘蹖丕賳诏乇 賳爻亘鬲 賳蹖乇賵蹖 丕賱讴鬲乇蹖讴蹖 亘賴 賳蹖乇賵蹖 噩丕匕亘賴 丕爻鬲
毓丿丿 爻賵賲 毓丿丿 丕賲诏丕 蹖丕 趩诏丕賱蹖 賳爻亘蹖 噩賴丕賳貙 亘丕 丕蹖賳 毓丿丿 賵 毓丿丿 亘毓丿蹖 賲卮禺氐 賲蹖卮賵丿 讴賴 趩乇丕 讴蹖賴丕賳 丿乇丨丕賱 诏爻鬲乇卮 丕爻鬲
毓丿丿 趩賴丕乇賲 毓丿丿 賱丕賳丿丕 賳蹖乇賵蹖 倬丕丿诏乇丕賳卮 讴蹖賴丕賳蹖貙 讴丕乇亘乇丿 丕蹖賳 毓丿丿 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 讴蹖賴丕賳 亘賴 爻乇毓鬲 丕賳亘爻丕胤 倬蹖丿丕 賳讴賳丿 蹖丕 禺蹖賱蹖 爻乇蹖毓 丕夭 賴賲 賳倬丕卮丿
毓丿丿 倬賳噩賲 毓丿丿 Q 丕蹖賳 毓丿丿 賳爻亘鬲 丿賵 賳蹖乇賵蹖 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖 丌睾丕夭蹖賳 亘蹖诏 亘賳诏 賴爻鬲 讴賴 丕诏乇 丕夭賲賯丿丕乇 0.00001 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賲蹖 亘賵丿 亘丕 噩賴丕賳蹖 倬乇 丕夭 爻蹖丕賴趩丕賱賴 賵 丕诏乇 讴賲鬲乇 亘賵丿 亘丕 噩賴丕賳蹖 賲乇丿賴 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 爻鬲丕乇賴 蹖丕 讴賴讴卮丕賳蹖 卮讴賱 賳賲蹖诏乇賮鬲 乇賵亘乇賵 亘賵丿蹖賲
丌禺乇蹖賳 毓丿丿貙 讴賴 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇蹖賳 毓丿丿 丕夭 賳馗乇 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賲丕 爻禺鬲 鬲乇蹖賳 丌賳賴丕 丕夭 賳馗乇 丿乇讴 丕爻鬲 毓丿丿 D 蹖丕 亘购毓丿 丕爻鬲
賴賲賴鈥屰� 賲丕 亘丕 噩賴丕賳 爻賴 亘毓丿蹖 丌卮賳丕 賴爻鬲蹖賲 貙 丨丕賱丕 丕诏賴 噩賴丕賳 鬲讴 亘毓丿蹖 亘賵丿 趩胤賵乇責 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賴蹖趩 丕鬲賮丕賯蹖 賳賲蹖 丕賮鬲丕丿 趩賵賳 匕乇丕鬲 亘乇賴賲 賴蹖趩 賵丕讴賳卮蹖 賳卮丕賳 賳賲蹖丿丕丿賳丿 賵 鈥屭嗁堎� 亘毓丿 亘丕賱丕鬲乇蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 亘賴 乇丕丨鬲蹖 丕夭 賴賲 毓亘賵乇 賲蹖讴乇丿賳丿 (丨鬲蹖 賳賲蹖卮賴 诏賮鬲 丕夭 丿乇賵賳 賴賲 趩賵賳 丿乇賵賳 賴賲 賳丿丕乇賳丿) 貙 亘乇丕蹖 噩賴丕賳 丿賵 亘毓丿蹖 蹖賴 賲蹖夭 乇賵 丿乇 賳馗乇 亘诏蹖乇蹖丿 讴賴 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲蹖 爻胤丨蹖 乇賵蹖 丌賳 丿乇 丨丕賱 鬲賳丕夭毓 亘乇丕蹖 亘賯丕 賴爻鬲賳丿. 禺亘 丿乇 丌禺乇 賯賵蹖 鬲乇蹖賳 賲賵噩賵丿 賳丕趩丕乇 丕爻鬲 丕賳鬲賴丕蹖 禺賵丿(丿賲 丕诏賴 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賴) 乇丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 睾匕丕 亘禺賵乇丿 ( 賲丕賳賳丿 賲丕乇 丕賵乇賵亘乇賵爻 蹖丕 丿賲亘 禺賵丕乇) 賵 禺亘 賳賴丕蹖鬲丕 丨蹖丕鬲 賴賲 亘賴 倬丕蹖丕賳 禺賵丿卮 賲蹖 乇爻蹖丿貙 丕賲丕 丨蹖丕鬲 賵 噩賴丕賳 丿乇 爻賴 亘毓丿 丕賲讴丕賳 诏爻鬲乇卮 賵 倬趩蹖丿賴 卮丿賳 乇丕 丿丕乇丿貙 賲孬賱丕 丕鬲賲 賴丕 賲賵賱讴賵賱 賴丕蹖 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴 鬲乇 乇丕 賲蹖爻丕夭賳丿 蹖丕 賲噩賲賵毓 爻鬲丕乇诏丕賳 讴賴讴卮丕賳 賴丕 蹖丕 禺賵卮賴 賴丕蹖 讴賴讴卮丕賳蹖 乇丕 鬲卮讴蹖賱 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀�.
丿乇 丌禺乇 賴乇 趩賳丿 賳馗乇蹖賴 噩賴丕賳 賴丕蹖 趩賳丿 亘毓丿蹖 賲丕賳賳丿 賳馗乇蹖賴 M 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿貙 丕賲丕 賲丕乇鬲蹖賳 乇蹖爻 亘賴 鬲賵囟蹖丨 鬲賳賴丕 讴蹖賴丕賳蹖 讴賴 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж驰屬� 賲蹖 倬乇丿丕夭丿 賳賴 噩賴丕賳鈥屬囏й� 賳丕卮賳丕禺鬲賴.
丕賵噩 讴丕乇 倬乇賵賮爻賵乇 賲丕乇鬲蹖賳 乇蹖爻 賳賴 賲毓乇賮蹖 賵 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 丕蹖賳 丕毓丿丕丿貙亘賱讴賴 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 蹖讴 亘蹖鈥屫� (丌鬲卅蹖爻鬲) 亘蹖丕賳 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 丿爻鬲蹖丕亘蹖 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賳馗賲 丿賯蹖賯 噩賴丕賳 賳蹖丕夭賲賳丿 亘賴 蹖讴 禺丕賱賯 丿丕賳丕 賳蹖爻鬲蹖賲 亘賱讴賴 亘賴 亘蹖賳賴丕蹖鬲 亘蹖诏 亘賳诏 亘丕 夭丕蹖卮 噩賴丕賳鈥屬囏й屰� 亘丕 賲丕賴蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳 賳蹖丕夭 丿丕乇蹖賲 鬲丕 亘賴 丕蹖賳 禺胤 亘丕乇蹖讴 丨蹖丕鬲 丿爻鬲 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳蹖賲.
蹖讴蹖 丕夭 倬乇爻卮鈥屬囏й� 丕爻丕爻蹖 賮賱爻賮賴 丕爻鬲 .
丕诏乇 丕蹖賳 爻賵丕賱 乇賵 亘爻胤 亘丿賴蹖賲 丿乇賵丕賯毓 鬲賲丕賲蹖 毓賱賵賲 亘丕 賴賲趩蹖賳 爻賵丕賱蹖 乇賵亘乇賵 禺賵丕賴賳丿 卮丿貙 賲孬賱丕 趩乇丕 丨蹖丕鬲 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿貙 趩乇丕 亘蹖诏 亘賳诏 丕鬲賮丕賯 丕賮鬲丕丿 賵 趩乇丕 丕賳爻丕賳 賲賵噩賵丿蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丕爻鬲 賵 睾蹖乇賴. 丕蹖賳 爻賵丕賱丕鬲 倬丕蹖賴貙 卮丕蹖丿 賴蹖趩鈥屭з� 倬丕爻禺蹖 賲賳丕爻亘 倬蹖丿丕 賳讴賳賳丿 丕賲丕 賱乇丿 賲丕乇鬲蹖賳 乇蹖爻貙 丕爻鬲乇賵賱賵噩蹖爻鬲 賵 賲賳噩賲 爻賱胤賳鬲蹖 亘丕 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 賲丕 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿 讴賴 亘毓丿 丕夭 亘蹖诏 亘賳诏 賵 賯亘賱 丕夭 丌睾丕夭 丨蹖丕鬲 趩賴 丕鬲賮丕賯蹖 丕賮鬲丕丿賴 丕爻鬲 鬲丕 卮賲丕 亘鬲賵丕賳蹖丿 亘賴 丕蹖賳 爻賵丕賱丕鬲 賮讴乇 讴賳蹖丿
卮卮 毓丿丿 讴鬲丕亘蹖 賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖 丿乇 丨賵夭賴 毓賲賵賲蹖 丕爻鬲 賵丨丿丕賯賱 倬蹖卮 賳蹖丕夭 丌賳 亘乇丕蹖 賮賴賲 亘賴鬲乇貙 賮蹖夭蹖讴 丿亘蹖乇爻鬲丕賳 丕爻鬲. 噩丕賳 讴賱丕賲 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇亘丕乇賴 鬲毓丕丿賱 賲蹖丕賳 卮卮 毓丿丿蹖 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘж簇� 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 倬丿蹖丿 丌賲丿賳 讴蹖賴丕賳 亘賴 卮讴賱蹖 讴賴 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж驰屬� 卮丿賴鈥屫ж池�. 丿乇賵丕賯毓 丕诏乇 賴乇 讴丿丕賲 丕夭 丕蹖賳 丕毓丿丕丿 讴賲鬲乇 蹖丕 夭蹖丕丿鬲乇 亘賵丿 丕蹖賳 讴蹖賴丕賳 亘賴 卮讴賱 丿蹖诏乇蹖 卮讴賱 賲蹖鈥屭辟佖�.
毓丿丿 丕賵賱 丕倬爻蹖賱賵賳 貙丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲毓乇賮 賳爻亘鬲 賴蹖丿乇賵跇賳 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿賴 亘賴 賴賱蹖賲 丿乇 丕賳賮噩丕乇 亘夭乇诏 賲蹖亘丕卮丿
毓丿丿 丿賵賲 毓丿丿 N 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘蹖丕賳诏乇 賳爻亘鬲 賳蹖乇賵蹖 丕賱讴鬲乇蹖讴蹖 亘賴 賳蹖乇賵蹖 噩丕匕亘賴 丕爻鬲
毓丿丿 爻賵賲 毓丿丿 丕賲诏丕 蹖丕 趩诏丕賱蹖 賳爻亘蹖 噩賴丕賳貙 亘丕 丕蹖賳 毓丿丿 賵 毓丿丿 亘毓丿蹖 賲卮禺氐 賲蹖卮賵丿 讴賴 趩乇丕 讴蹖賴丕賳 丿乇丨丕賱 诏爻鬲乇卮 丕爻鬲
毓丿丿 趩賴丕乇賲 毓丿丿 賱丕賳丿丕 賳蹖乇賵蹖 倬丕丿诏乇丕賳卮 讴蹖賴丕賳蹖貙 讴丕乇亘乇丿 丕蹖賳 毓丿丿 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 讴蹖賴丕賳 亘賴 爻乇毓鬲 丕賳亘爻丕胤 倬蹖丿丕 賳讴賳丿 蹖丕 禺蹖賱蹖 爻乇蹖毓 丕夭 賴賲 賳倬丕卮丿
毓丿丿 倬賳噩賲 毓丿丿 Q 丕蹖賳 毓丿丿 賳爻亘鬲 丿賵 賳蹖乇賵蹖 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖 丌睾丕夭蹖賳 亘蹖诏 亘賳诏 賴爻鬲 讴賴 丕诏乇 丕夭賲賯丿丕乇 0.00001 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賲蹖 亘賵丿 亘丕 噩賴丕賳蹖 倬乇 丕夭 爻蹖丕賴趩丕賱賴 賵 丕诏乇 讴賲鬲乇 亘賵丿 亘丕 噩賴丕賳蹖 賲乇丿賴 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 爻鬲丕乇賴 蹖丕 讴賴讴卮丕賳蹖 卮讴賱 賳賲蹖诏乇賮鬲 乇賵亘乇賵 亘賵丿蹖賲
丌禺乇蹖賳 毓丿丿貙 讴賴 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇蹖賳 毓丿丿 丕夭 賳馗乇 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賲丕 爻禺鬲 鬲乇蹖賳 丌賳賴丕 丕夭 賳馗乇 丿乇讴 丕爻鬲 毓丿丿 D 蹖丕 亘购毓丿 丕爻鬲
賴賲賴鈥屰� 賲丕 亘丕 噩賴丕賳 爻賴 亘毓丿蹖 丌卮賳丕 賴爻鬲蹖賲 貙 丨丕賱丕 丕诏賴 噩賴丕賳 鬲讴 亘毓丿蹖 亘賵丿 趩胤賵乇責 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賴蹖趩 丕鬲賮丕賯蹖 賳賲蹖 丕賮鬲丕丿 趩賵賳 匕乇丕鬲 亘乇賴賲 賴蹖趩 賵丕讴賳卮蹖 賳卮丕賳 賳賲蹖丿丕丿賳丿 賵 鈥屭嗁堎� 亘毓丿 亘丕賱丕鬲乇蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 亘賴 乇丕丨鬲蹖 丕夭 賴賲 毓亘賵乇 賲蹖讴乇丿賳丿 (丨鬲蹖 賳賲蹖卮賴 诏賮鬲 丕夭 丿乇賵賳 賴賲 趩賵賳 丿乇賵賳 賴賲 賳丿丕乇賳丿) 貙 亘乇丕蹖 噩賴丕賳 丿賵 亘毓丿蹖 蹖賴 賲蹖夭 乇賵 丿乇 賳馗乇 亘诏蹖乇蹖丿 讴賴 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲蹖 爻胤丨蹖 乇賵蹖 丌賳 丿乇 丨丕賱 鬲賳丕夭毓 亘乇丕蹖 亘賯丕 賴爻鬲賳丿. 禺亘 丿乇 丌禺乇 賯賵蹖 鬲乇蹖賳 賲賵噩賵丿 賳丕趩丕乇 丕爻鬲 丕賳鬲賴丕蹖 禺賵丿(丿賲 丕诏賴 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賴) 乇丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 睾匕丕 亘禺賵乇丿 ( 賲丕賳賳丿 賲丕乇 丕賵乇賵亘乇賵爻 蹖丕 丿賲亘 禺賵丕乇) 賵 禺亘 賳賴丕蹖鬲丕 丨蹖丕鬲 賴賲 亘賴 倬丕蹖丕賳 禺賵丿卮 賲蹖 乇爻蹖丿貙 丕賲丕 丨蹖丕鬲 賵 噩賴丕賳 丿乇 爻賴 亘毓丿 丕賲讴丕賳 诏爻鬲乇卮 賵 倬趩蹖丿賴 卮丿賳 乇丕 丿丕乇丿貙 賲孬賱丕 丕鬲賲 賴丕 賲賵賱讴賵賱 賴丕蹖 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴 鬲乇 乇丕 賲蹖爻丕夭賳丿 蹖丕 賲噩賲賵毓 爻鬲丕乇诏丕賳 讴賴讴卮丕賳 賴丕 蹖丕 禺賵卮賴 賴丕蹖 讴賴讴卮丕賳蹖 乇丕 鬲卮讴蹖賱 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀�.
丿乇 丌禺乇 賴乇 趩賳丿 賳馗乇蹖賴 噩賴丕賳 賴丕蹖 趩賳丿 亘毓丿蹖 賲丕賳賳丿 賳馗乇蹖賴 M 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿貙 丕賲丕 賲丕乇鬲蹖賳 乇蹖爻 亘賴 鬲賵囟蹖丨 鬲賳賴丕 讴蹖賴丕賳蹖 讴賴 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж驰屬� 賲蹖 倬乇丿丕夭丿 賳賴 噩賴丕賳鈥屬囏й� 賳丕卮賳丕禺鬲賴.
丕賵噩 讴丕乇 倬乇賵賮爻賵乇 賲丕乇鬲蹖賳 乇蹖爻 賳賴 賲毓乇賮蹖 賵 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 丕蹖賳 丕毓丿丕丿貙亘賱讴賴 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 蹖讴 亘蹖鈥屫� (丌鬲卅蹖爻鬲) 亘蹖丕賳 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 丿爻鬲蹖丕亘蹖 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賳馗賲 丿賯蹖賯 噩賴丕賳 賳蹖丕夭賲賳丿 亘賴 蹖讴 禺丕賱賯 丿丕賳丕 賳蹖爻鬲蹖賲 亘賱讴賴 亘賴 亘蹖賳賴丕蹖鬲 亘蹖诏 亘賳诏 亘丕 夭丕蹖卮 噩賴丕賳鈥屬囏й屰� 亘丕 賲丕賴蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳 賳蹖丕夭 丿丕乇蹖賲 鬲丕 亘賴 丕蹖賳 禺胤 亘丕乇蹖讴 丨蹖丕鬲 丿爻鬲 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳蹖賲.
August 19, 2011
I gobbled this one up in a heartbeat. Brilliant, wonderful, insightful. I loved it. I plan on reading it again before taking it back to the library. Maybe I will get a copy for the house too. I don't have anything to add to what the author said. Bravo and thank you for letting the reader make his own conclusion or choose not to make any at that point. I was worried there for a bit that he was going to pounce an agenda on me. Nope. It looks like the author is just genuinely interested in as he calls them the "Deep Forces That Shape the Universe" and dang it I am too. I am very interested and was very pleased with this presentation. This is a book that will be deliciously satisfying but leave you pondering and doing a lot of internal dialogue on the matter. Its worth having this discussion with yourself and I feel the author has done just that and let you in on his musings. I will absolutely be picking up another one by Rees, I was very pleased.
January 25, 2010
A terse survey of cosmology. Covers a wide breadth without going into satisfactory depth.
For example, the author sometimes mentions only one of several interesting points of view.
Still, a fine read, especially valuable to the novice, but not boring to the expert.
Embarrassingly, the author predicts the discovery of dark matter particles by 2005.
:P
For example, the author sometimes mentions only one of several interesting points of view.
Still, a fine read, especially valuable to the novice, but not boring to the expert.
Embarrassingly, the author predicts the discovery of dark matter particles by 2005.
:P
April 13, 2025
Like the similar Goldilocks Enigma popular book on fine-tuning, I found Rees to be alternately thoughtful and stolid. His default position is that we happen to live in a universe tuned for our evolutionary ability to perceive it. No God needed to fill gaps. No anthropic principle for us to vaunt our star cred. It鈥檚 just the way it is.
Which makes sense but doesn鈥檛 create an engrossing read. The chapters on the magic six feel unevenly paced, their style awkwardly alternating between insightful observations on cosmological phenomena and boilerplate recitation of commonalities. It鈥檚 an offhandedly casual approach which ambles through.
It was composed early in the year 2000, despite its 2008 edition. Not sure if as with the Big Crunch or gravitational waves if breakthrough discoveries as of a quarter century hence have fundamentally altered its arguments. However, applause for Sir Martin not capitulating to Ockham鈥檚 Razor when discussing the 鈥減robability鈥� of simpler rationalizations applying to the mysteries of our cosmic speculation. While reverting to multiverses infinitely multiplied may seem a dodge (and he skims this crucial topic itself to my disappointment), Rees refuses to reduce the vast realm we may glimpse 鈥渙nly鈥� ten-odd billion light years across as the end-all and be-all, literally.
Which makes sense but doesn鈥檛 create an engrossing read. The chapters on the magic six feel unevenly paced, their style awkwardly alternating between insightful observations on cosmological phenomena and boilerplate recitation of commonalities. It鈥檚 an offhandedly casual approach which ambles through.
It was composed early in the year 2000, despite its 2008 edition. Not sure if as with the Big Crunch or gravitational waves if breakthrough discoveries as of a quarter century hence have fundamentally altered its arguments. However, applause for Sir Martin not capitulating to Ockham鈥檚 Razor when discussing the 鈥減robability鈥� of simpler rationalizations applying to the mysteries of our cosmic speculation. While reverting to multiverses infinitely multiplied may seem a dodge (and he skims this crucial topic itself to my disappointment), Rees refuses to reduce the vast realm we may glimpse 鈥渙nly鈥� ten-odd billion light years across as the end-all and be-all, literally.
February 21, 2016
This book might be short, but it is full of information that are presented in an easy-to-understand style. Unlike many of popular science books, this one is to the point and there are very few diversions. The main thesis is one of the greatest discoveries in physics that was made in the 1970s and 1980s; it tells us that there are these six numbers, which are extremely fine-tuned and what would happen if any of them is only slightly modified.
What makes this book more interesting is the fact that the author is an atheist, yet as a leading astronomer he is telling us about the scientific foundations of the fine-tuning case that is used by theists as evidence for the existence of god. Fine-tunning is according to prominent atheist (and anti-theist) Chritopher Hitchens the only serious argument for existence of God and Jerry Coyne called it the new Natural Theology. It should be noted that the author keeps good relations with the religious; he won The Templeton Prize in 2011 which is given to those that have "made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension". Richard Dawkins called him a "compliant quisling" (i.e. a collaborator with the enemy) for accepting that prize.
The author takes us through inspirational observations of the universe. How did life emerge and develop? Is there life elsewhere? How big can living things grow to? What are the four powers of nature and how are they fine tuned? What is gravity, neutrino stars and black holes? How did elements and galaxies form? Why are carbon and nitrogen abundant in Earth while gold and uranium rare? What are the nuclear forces and how are they fine tuned? Is the universe expanding? What is the evidence for the Big Bang? What is Dark Matter, Anti-matter and Neutrinos? What is Dark Energy? What is the story of Einstein's cosmological constant? What is time? What is the inflation theory and superstring theory?
For fine-tunig, the author offers two options, chance or design. But then he adds that there is a third option which is the multiverse, which the author subscribes to despite calling it speculative and "a hunch". The author is optimistic that further advancements in science will strengthen our understanding of the multiverse. After reading Max Tegmarks Our Mathematical Universe, I can say that I'm half way convinced about the multiverse.
A recurring point in many popular science physics book that I'm repeatedly seeing and is included in this book is the fact that since the universe is flat its total energy is zero. And since gravity is a negative energy, the total cost to create the universe is zero. This is tackled in more detail in Laurence Kruass's A Universe from Nothing.
The book was published in 1999 and so some of the information in it is slightly outdated. This shows how science has progressed in the last 17 years. For example he says that the age of the universe is between 12 and 13 billion years and that we don't know the deceleration and acceleration of its expansion since its creation. We now know that the universe is 13.72 billion years old and that its expansion was decelerating in the first 7 billion years before changing to accelerating due to the increasing power of Dark Energy.
So in overall in an amazing book that is thought provoking about one of the deepest questions. It might feel a bit dry for those not used to reading science books, but the journey is well worth it.
What makes this book more interesting is the fact that the author is an atheist, yet as a leading astronomer he is telling us about the scientific foundations of the fine-tuning case that is used by theists as evidence for the existence of god. Fine-tunning is according to prominent atheist (and anti-theist) Chritopher Hitchens the only serious argument for existence of God and Jerry Coyne called it the new Natural Theology. It should be noted that the author keeps good relations with the religious; he won The Templeton Prize in 2011 which is given to those that have "made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension". Richard Dawkins called him a "compliant quisling" (i.e. a collaborator with the enemy) for accepting that prize.
The author takes us through inspirational observations of the universe. How did life emerge and develop? Is there life elsewhere? How big can living things grow to? What are the four powers of nature and how are they fine tuned? What is gravity, neutrino stars and black holes? How did elements and galaxies form? Why are carbon and nitrogen abundant in Earth while gold and uranium rare? What are the nuclear forces and how are they fine tuned? Is the universe expanding? What is the evidence for the Big Bang? What is Dark Matter, Anti-matter and Neutrinos? What is Dark Energy? What is the story of Einstein's cosmological constant? What is time? What is the inflation theory and superstring theory?
For fine-tunig, the author offers two options, chance or design. But then he adds that there is a third option which is the multiverse, which the author subscribes to despite calling it speculative and "a hunch". The author is optimistic that further advancements in science will strengthen our understanding of the multiverse. After reading Max Tegmarks Our Mathematical Universe, I can say that I'm half way convinced about the multiverse.
A recurring point in many popular science physics book that I'm repeatedly seeing and is included in this book is the fact that since the universe is flat its total energy is zero. And since gravity is a negative energy, the total cost to create the universe is zero. This is tackled in more detail in Laurence Kruass's A Universe from Nothing.
The book was published in 1999 and so some of the information in it is slightly outdated. This shows how science has progressed in the last 17 years. For example he says that the age of the universe is between 12 and 13 billion years and that we don't know the deceleration and acceleration of its expansion since its creation. We now know that the universe is 13.72 billion years old and that its expansion was decelerating in the first 7 billion years before changing to accelerating due to the increasing power of Dark Energy.
So in overall in an amazing book that is thought provoking about one of the deepest questions. It might feel a bit dry for those not used to reading science books, but the journey is well worth it.
March 6, 2014
Just six numbers, written and narrated by the author (k drive)
1999
non-fiction
science (multiple universe theory, super strings)
fraudio
Martin Rees has been Astronomer Royal since 1995.
You can't get away from the black and white of the situation, manouvered or evolved. You will find that there is no point in discussing this with anyone. Everyone believes, in the depths of their very being, one way or the other...
tweaked or not tweaked
You could not hope to convert by discussion so why bother trying. I am the one who crawls out of the Chinese Coal Mine every morning at 5a,m to cook the porridge oats; I get to watch the independent eruptions occuring within the one closed system of the saucepan and so have no problem at all with envisioning the parallel universe scenario - it is nothing but beautiful and natural and right. No tweaking needed.
*Anyone falling into a blackhole encounters the end of time* and I love the term spaghettification.
4*
1999
non-fiction
science (multiple universe theory, super strings)
fraudio
Martin Rees has been Astronomer Royal since 1995.
You can't get away from the black and white of the situation, manouvered or evolved. You will find that there is no point in discussing this with anyone. Everyone believes, in the depths of their very being, one way or the other...
tweaked or not tweaked
You could not hope to convert by discussion so why bother trying. I am the one who crawls out of the Chinese Coal Mine every morning at 5a,m to cook the porridge oats; I get to watch the independent eruptions occuring within the one closed system of the saucepan and so have no problem at all with envisioning the parallel universe scenario - it is nothing but beautiful and natural and right. No tweaking needed.
*Anyone falling into a blackhole encounters the end of time* and I love the term spaghettification.
4*
June 22, 2017
讴鬲丕亘 賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖 禺賵賳丿賳蹖 丕蹖 亘乇丕蹖 毓賲賵賲. 賳诏丕賴蹖 讴賱蹖 亘賴 卮卮 毓賳氐乇 丕氐賱蹖 讴賴 丕蹖賳 噩賴丕賳 乇賵 賲丨賱 賲賳丕爻亘蹖 亘乇丕蹖 夭蹖爻鬲賳 賲蹖讴賳賴貙 賲蹖賳丿丕夭賴. 禺賵丕賳丿賳卮 爻丕丿賴 爻 賵 賲賯丿丕乇 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 卮 丕夭 賮蹖夭蹖讴 鬲賯乇蹖亘丕 讴賲賴 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 卮丿賴 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇丕蹖 毓賲賵賲 賲賳丕爻亘 亘丕卮賴 賵 丿蹖丿 讴賱蹖 丕蹖 乇丕噩毓 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 亘賴卮賵賳 亘丿賴. 丨噩賲卮 讴賲賴 賵 禺蹖賱蹖 爻乇蹖毓 賴賲 亘賴 倬丕蹖丕賳 賲蹖乇爻賴.
If one had to summarize, in just one sentence, 'What's been happening since the Big Bang?', the best answer might be to take a deep breath and say: 'Ever since the beginning, gravity has been moulding cosmic structures and enhancing temperature contrasts, a prerequisite for the emergence of the complexity that lies around us ten billion years later, and of which we are part.
If one had to summarize, in just one sentence, 'What's been happening since the Big Bang?', the best answer might be to take a deep breath and say: 'Ever since the beginning, gravity has been moulding cosmic structures and enhancing temperature contrasts, a prerequisite for the emergence of the complexity that lies around us ten billion years later, and of which we are part.
April 4, 2020
My gut? After reading this and the books on the big issues at the heart of quantum physics, it seems likely that something key is missing from our theories. Maybe some physicist trapped in covid lockdown will have a flash of boredom-triggered-brilliance and solve it...
June 25, 2017
3.5 stars. I appreciate it for familiarizing me with these 6 important numbers. However, the reason for the loss of 1.5 stars was due to the book's seeming lack of inspiration. There doesn't seem to be any excitement throughout. Very bland at times for such an interesting topic.
May 8, 2017
賴賱 賴匕丕 丕賱囟亘胤 賲噩乇丿 丨賯賷賯丞 毓賲賷丕亍 睾卮賵賲 責 兀賵 賲噩乇丿 氐丿賮丞 責兀賲 賴賵 乇夭賯 賲賳 禺丕賱賯 賰乇賷賲 責
賷賳丕賯卮 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 爻鬲丞 賲賳 丕賱孬賵丕亘鬲 丕賱賰賵賳賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀賳 鬲睾賷乇鬲 賵賱賵 賱賲賯丿丕乇 胤賮賷賮 賮賴匕丕 爻賷丐丿賷 丕賱賶 鬲亘毓丕鬲 鬲丐丿賷 丕賱賶 毓丿賲 鬲卮賰賱 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賵 丕賱賰賵賳 賮賷 亘毓囟 丕賱丨丕賱丕鬲 .
賵賴匕賴 丕賱孬賵丕亘鬲 丕賱爻鬲 亘兀禺鬲氐丕乇 賴賷 :
1-N 賵賴賵 乇賯賲 賰亘賷乇 噩丿丕 賯丿乇賴 賵丕丨丿 賲鬲亘賵毓丕 亘36 氐賮乇 賵賴賵 賷賲孬賱 丕賱賳爻亘丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賯賵丞 丕賱賰賴乇賵賲睾賳丕胤賷爻賷丞 賵丕賱噩丕匕亘賷丞 賱賵 賰丕賳 賴匕丕 丕賱乇賯賲 丕賯賱 亘賯賱賷賱 爻鬲氐亘丨 丕賱噩丕匕亘賷丞 丕賯賵賶 賲乇丕鬲 毓丿賷丿丞 賵賱賳 鬲賳卮兀 丕賷 賰丕卅賳丕鬲 賲丕 毓丿丕 丕賱丨卮乇丕鬲 丕賱氐睾賷乇丞 .
2-E 賵賴賵 乇賯賲 賯賷賲鬲賴 0.007 賵賴賵 丕賱賲爻丐賵賱 毓賳 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丕賱丕賳賵賷丞 亘亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟 . 賵賱賵 鬲睾賷乇 賯賱賷賱 賱賲丕 鬲賰賵賳鬲 丕賷 毓賳丕氐乇 丿丕禺賱 丕賱卮賲賵爻 賲賳 丕賱丕賳丿賲丕噩丕鬲 丕賱賳賵賵賷丞 .
3- (丕賵賲賷睾丕 ) 賵賴賷 丕賱賲爻丐賵賱丞 毓賳 賰孬丕賮丞 丕賱賲丕丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賰賵賳 賮賱賵 賰丕賳鬲 毓丕賱賷丞 賵賱賵 亘賯賱賷賱 爻鬲賳噩匕亘 賰賱 丕賱賲噩乇丕鬲 賳丨賵 亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟 賵爻鬲賮賳賷 亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟 賵賱賵 賰丕賳鬲 丕賯賱 賱鬲賵爻毓 丕賱賰賵賳 亘爻乇毓丞 賲賳 丿賵賳 賲賳丨 賮乇氐丞 賱賱賲噩乇丕鬲 賵丨鬲賶 丕賱卮賲賵爻 賲賳 丕賱鬲賰賵賳 .
4-(賱賲丿丕) 賵賴賵 丕賱乇賯賲 丕賱賲爻丐賵賱 毓賳 鬲賵爻毓 丕賱賰賵賳 亘賴匕賴 丕賱爻乇毓丞 丕賱賲丨丿丿丞
5-Q 賵賴賵 賷氐賮 丕賱鬲丕乇噩丨丕鬲 丕賱噩匕亘賵賷丞 賮賷 亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱賰賵賳 賵丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳 賱賴丕 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賰亘賷乇 毓賱賶 賰賵賳賳丕 丕賱賲賳馗乇 賵賯賷賲鬲賴丕 賴賷 1/1000000.
6-D賵賴賵 毓丿丿 丕賱丕亘毓丕丿 賮賳丨賳 賳毓賷卮 賮賷 賰賵賳 孬賱丕孬賷 丕賱丕亘毓丕丿 亘丕賱丕囟丕賮丞 賱亘毓丿 丕賱夭賲賳 賵賴匕丕 丕賱毓丿丿 賲賳 丕賱丕亘毓丕丿 賴賵 亘丕賱囟亘胤 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘 賱賱丨賷丕丞 丕匕丕 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 鬲賰賵賳 丨賷丕丞 賮賷 亘毓丿賷賳 丕賵 丕乇亘毓丞 丕亘毓丕丿.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷胤乇丨 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕爻卅賱丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 丕賱賲賴賲丞 賲孬賱 賴賱 賷賲賰賳 鬲賵賱丿 卮賷亍 賲賳 賱丕 卮賷亍 賵賴賱 賱賱賰賵賳 賲賳 氐丕賳毓 丕賲 賴賷 氐丿賮丞 丕賵 丕賰賵丕賳 賲鬲毓丿丿丞 賵丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賷賲賷賱 賱賱丕禺鬲賷丕乇 丕賱丕禺賷乇 . 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲毓 賵亘爻賷胤 賱賲賳 賷乇賷丿 丕賱鬲毓乇賮 毓賱賶 丕賱賰賵賳 丕賱匕賷 賷毓賷卮 毓賱賷賴 .
賲丕 賷毓賷亘 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賳 亘毓囟 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 賯丿 丕爻鬲丨丿孬鬲 賵賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 賯丿 賰卮賮鬲 賲賳匕 賰鬲丕亘鬲賴 爻賳丞 1999 .賵丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賱賲 鬲賰賳 噩賷丿丞 噩丿丕 亘賱 丨賵鬲 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丕禺胤丕亍 賵賴匕丕 毓賰爻 賲丕 鬲賵賯毓鬲賴 賱丕賳賷 鬲賵賯毓鬲 丕賳 鬲乇噩賲丞 亘乇丕賴賷賳 爻鬲賰賵賳 賯賵賷丞 賱賰賳 禺賮鬲 丕賳 賷丨乇賮賵丕 賰賱丕賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱賷孬亘鬲賵丕 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賴賲 賱賰賳 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賰爻 丕賱鬲夭賲賵丕 亘賰賱丕賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱丨乇賮賷 賵賱賲 賷睾賷乇賵賴 賵賱賰賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賰丕賳鬲 爻賷卅丞.
賷賳丕賯卮 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 爻鬲丞 賲賳 丕賱孬賵丕亘鬲 丕賱賰賵賳賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀賳 鬲睾賷乇鬲 賵賱賵 賱賲賯丿丕乇 胤賮賷賮 賮賴匕丕 爻賷丐丿賷 丕賱賶 鬲亘毓丕鬲 鬲丐丿賷 丕賱賶 毓丿賲 鬲卮賰賱 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賵 丕賱賰賵賳 賮賷 亘毓囟 丕賱丨丕賱丕鬲 .
賵賴匕賴 丕賱孬賵丕亘鬲 丕賱爻鬲 亘兀禺鬲氐丕乇 賴賷 :
1-N 賵賴賵 乇賯賲 賰亘賷乇 噩丿丕 賯丿乇賴 賵丕丨丿 賲鬲亘賵毓丕 亘36 氐賮乇 賵賴賵 賷賲孬賱 丕賱賳爻亘丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賯賵丞 丕賱賰賴乇賵賲睾賳丕胤賷爻賷丞 賵丕賱噩丕匕亘賷丞 賱賵 賰丕賳 賴匕丕 丕賱乇賯賲 丕賯賱 亘賯賱賷賱 爻鬲氐亘丨 丕賱噩丕匕亘賷丞 丕賯賵賶 賲乇丕鬲 毓丿賷丿丞 賵賱賳 鬲賳卮兀 丕賷 賰丕卅賳丕鬲 賲丕 毓丿丕 丕賱丨卮乇丕鬲 丕賱氐睾賷乇丞 .
2-E 賵賴賵 乇賯賲 賯賷賲鬲賴 0.007 賵賴賵 丕賱賲爻丐賵賱 毓賳 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 丕賱丕賳賵賷丞 亘亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟 . 賵賱賵 鬲睾賷乇 賯賱賷賱 賱賲丕 鬲賰賵賳鬲 丕賷 毓賳丕氐乇 丿丕禺賱 丕賱卮賲賵爻 賲賳 丕賱丕賳丿賲丕噩丕鬲 丕賱賳賵賵賷丞 .
3- (丕賵賲賷睾丕 ) 賵賴賷 丕賱賲爻丐賵賱丞 毓賳 賰孬丕賮丞 丕賱賲丕丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賰賵賳 賮賱賵 賰丕賳鬲 毓丕賱賷丞 賵賱賵 亘賯賱賷賱 爻鬲賳噩匕亘 賰賱 丕賱賲噩乇丕鬲 賳丨賵 亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟 賵爻鬲賮賳賷 亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟 賵賱賵 賰丕賳鬲 丕賯賱 賱鬲賵爻毓 丕賱賰賵賳 亘爻乇毓丞 賲賳 丿賵賳 賲賳丨 賮乇氐丞 賱賱賲噩乇丕鬲 賵丨鬲賶 丕賱卮賲賵爻 賲賳 丕賱鬲賰賵賳 .
4-(賱賲丿丕) 賵賴賵 丕賱乇賯賲 丕賱賲爻丐賵賱 毓賳 鬲賵爻毓 丕賱賰賵賳 亘賴匕賴 丕賱爻乇毓丞 丕賱賲丨丿丿丞
5-Q 賵賴賵 賷氐賮 丕賱鬲丕乇噩丨丕鬲 丕賱噩匕亘賵賷丞 賮賷 亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱賰賵賳 賵丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳 賱賴丕 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賰亘賷乇 毓賱賶 賰賵賳賳丕 丕賱賲賳馗乇 賵賯賷賲鬲賴丕 賴賷 1/1000000.
6-D賵賴賵 毓丿丿 丕賱丕亘毓丕丿 賮賳丨賳 賳毓賷卮 賮賷 賰賵賳 孬賱丕孬賷 丕賱丕亘毓丕丿 亘丕賱丕囟丕賮丞 賱亘毓丿 丕賱夭賲賳 賵賴匕丕 丕賱毓丿丿 賲賳 丕賱丕亘毓丕丿 賴賵 亘丕賱囟亘胤 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘 賱賱丨賷丕丞 丕匕丕 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 鬲賰賵賳 丨賷丕丞 賮賷 亘毓丿賷賳 丕賵 丕乇亘毓丞 丕亘毓丕丿.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷胤乇丨 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕爻卅賱丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 丕賱賲賴賲丞 賲孬賱 賴賱 賷賲賰賳 鬲賵賱丿 卮賷亍 賲賳 賱丕 卮賷亍 賵賴賱 賱賱賰賵賳 賲賳 氐丕賳毓 丕賲 賴賷 氐丿賮丞 丕賵 丕賰賵丕賳 賲鬲毓丿丿丞 賵丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賷賲賷賱 賱賱丕禺鬲賷丕乇 丕賱丕禺賷乇 . 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲毓 賵亘爻賷胤 賱賲賳 賷乇賷丿 丕賱鬲毓乇賮 毓賱賶 丕賱賰賵賳 丕賱匕賷 賷毓賷卮 毓賱賷賴 .
賲丕 賷毓賷亘 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賳 亘毓囟 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 賯丿 丕爻鬲丨丿孬鬲 賵賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 賯丿 賰卮賮鬲 賲賳匕 賰鬲丕亘鬲賴 爻賳丞 1999 .賵丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賱賲 鬲賰賳 噩賷丿丞 噩丿丕 亘賱 丨賵鬲 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丕禺胤丕亍 賵賴匕丕 毓賰爻 賲丕 鬲賵賯毓鬲賴 賱丕賳賷 鬲賵賯毓鬲 丕賳 鬲乇噩賲丞 亘乇丕賴賷賳 爻鬲賰賵賳 賯賵賷丞 賱賰賳 禺賮鬲 丕賳 賷丨乇賮賵丕 賰賱丕賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱賷孬亘鬲賵丕 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賴賲 賱賰賳 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賰爻 丕賱鬲夭賲賵丕 亘賰賱丕賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱丨乇賮賷 賵賱賲 賷睾賷乇賵賴 賵賱賰賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賰丕賳鬲 爻賷卅丞.
June 21, 2014
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 賳賲賵賳賴 賴丕蹖 賲賵賮賯 丿乇 夭賲蹖賳賴 蹖 鬲乇賵蹖噩 毓賱賲* 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 賯賱賲 蹖讴 丿丕賳卮賲賳丿 亘乇噩爻鬲賴 賳賵卮鬲賴 卮丿賴 賵 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賱丨丕馗 鬲乇噩賲賴 丕卮 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳爻鬲 賲丕蹖賴 蹖 禺賵卮賳賵丿蹖 賵 乇丕賴 诏卮丕 亘丕卮丿.賵賱蹖 鬲乇噩賲賴 蹖 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖賳 丕賲蹖丿 乇丕 亘賴 亘丕丿 賲蹖 丿賴丿.賲鬲乇噩賲 丿乇 賲賵丕乇丿 賲鬲毓丿丿蹖 毓賯丕蹖丿 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖讴 丕卮 乇丕 丿乇 賯丕賱亘 倬丕賵乇賯蹖 亘賴 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 毓賱賲蹖 鬲丨賲蹖賱 賲蹖 讴賳丿 賵 蹖丕 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲蹖 亘蹖 賮丕蹖丿賴 丕乇丕蹖賴 賲蹖 丿賴丿. 亘乇丕蹖 賳賲賵賳賴 丿乇 倬丕賵乇賯蹖 蹖讴 讴鬲丕亘 毓賱賲蹖 亘賴 "毓丿賱 丕賱丕賴蹖" 賲乇鬲囟蹖 賲胤賴乇蹖 丕乇噩丕毓 賲蹖 丿賴丿 賵 亘丕 丕卮丕乇賴 賴丕蹖蹖 賳丕賯氐 蹖丕 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 亘賴 丕亘蹖丕鬲蹖 丕夭 爻毓丿蹖 賵 丨丕賮馗貙 賲鬲賮賳賳 亘賵丿賳卮 乇丕 丿乇 丌賳 夭賲蹖賳賴 賴丕 賳蹖夭 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖 丿賴丿
丿乇 氐賮丨丕鬲 丌睾丕夭蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 賴乇 丿賵 诏夭蹖賳賴 蹖 "鬲氐丕丿賮" 賵 "鬲賯丿蹖乇 蹖讴 禺丕賱賯 賲賴乇亘丕賳" 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 鬲賵囟蹖丨 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 噩賴丕賳 乇丿 賲蹖 讴賳丿 賵 賲賵囟毓 爻賵賲蹖 ("鬲賳馗蹖賲 丿賯蹖賯") 丕鬲禺丕匕 賲蹖 讴賳丿貙 賲鬲乇噩賲 毓賯丕蹖丿 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 乇丕 卮乇賲 丌賵乇 (!!) 禺賵丕賳丿賴 賵 亘丕 賳賮賴賲蹖丿賳 賲賵囟毓 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴貙 丕賵 乇丕 賲鬲賴賲 亘賴 鬲賳丕賯囟 诏賵蹖蹖 賲蹖 讴賳丿.賲鬲乇噩賲 賲蹖 诏賵蹖丿 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丕夭 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 诏夭蹖賳賴 蹖 "禺丕賱賯 賲賴乇亘丕賳" 卮乇賲 丿丕乇丿.賵賱蹖 賮賯胤 趩賳丿 氐賮丨賴 亘毓丿 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴 蹖 丕鬲禺丕匕 賲賵囟毓 爻賵賲貙 噩賴丕賳 亘蹖賳蹖 丕蹖 "丕賳爻丕賳 亘賳蹖丕丿" 丕乇丕蹖賴 賲蹖 讴賳丿貙 賲鬲乇噩賲 賲賵囟毓 丕賵 乇丕 鬲丕蹖蹖丿 讴乇丿賴 賵 丌賳 乇丕 鬲賮爻蹖乇蹖 胤亘蹖毓蹖 丕夭 蹖讴 丨丿蹖孬 賯丿爻蹖 賲蹖 禺賵丕賳丿
賵賱蹖 賲卮讴賱 賲賴賲 鬲乇 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲鬲乇噩賲 (亘賴 禺丕胤乇 賴乇丕爻 丕夭 毓賯丕蹖丿 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴)丿乇 賲賵丕乇丿蹖 丕賲丕賳鬲 乇丕 乇毓丕蹖鬲 賳讴乇丿賴 賵 鬲乇噩賲賴 乇丕 賲禺丿賵卮 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲.賲毓丕丿賱 賴丕蹖蹖 賴賲 讴賴 賲鬲乇噩賲 亘乇丕蹖 丕氐胤賱丕丨丕鬲 毓賱賲蹖 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 讴乇丿賴 丿乇 賲賵丕乇丿蹖 賳丕丿賯蹖賯 (賲丕賳賳丿 "鬲賳馗蹖賲 馗乇蹖賮"**) 賵 丿乇 賲賵丕乇丿蹖 睾蹖乇 賯丕亘賱 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 (賲丕賳賳丿 "毓丕賱賲蹖賳"***) 丕爻鬲
亘丕 丕蹖賳 丕賵氐丕賮 禺賵丿鬲丕賳 賯囟丕賵鬲 讴賳蹖丿 讴賴 讴丕乇 丕蹖賳 賲鬲乇噩賲 卮乇賲 丌賵乇 丕爻鬲 蹖丕 毓賯丕蹖丿 丌賳 賮蹖夭蹖讴丿丕賳! 丕賱亘鬲賴 亘乇 賲鬲乇噩賲丕賳 賲鬲賮賳賳 賵 賮賯賴 倬蹖卮賴 丕蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 丿爻鬲 丨乇噩蹖 賳蹖爻鬲. 丕夭 賳丕卮乇蹖 趩賵賳 賳蹖 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 賲蹖 乇賵丿 讴賴 亘乇 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖卮 賳馗丕乇鬲 讴賳丿
...............................
*Popular Science
**Fine-tuning
***Multiverse
丿乇 氐賮丨丕鬲 丌睾丕夭蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 賴乇 丿賵 诏夭蹖賳賴 蹖 "鬲氐丕丿賮" 賵 "鬲賯丿蹖乇 蹖讴 禺丕賱賯 賲賴乇亘丕賳" 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 鬲賵囟蹖丨 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 噩賴丕賳 乇丿 賲蹖 讴賳丿 賵 賲賵囟毓 爻賵賲蹖 ("鬲賳馗蹖賲 丿賯蹖賯") 丕鬲禺丕匕 賲蹖 讴賳丿貙 賲鬲乇噩賲 毓賯丕蹖丿 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 乇丕 卮乇賲 丌賵乇 (!!) 禺賵丕賳丿賴 賵 亘丕 賳賮賴賲蹖丿賳 賲賵囟毓 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴貙 丕賵 乇丕 賲鬲賴賲 亘賴 鬲賳丕賯囟 诏賵蹖蹖 賲蹖 讴賳丿.賲鬲乇噩賲 賲蹖 诏賵蹖丿 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丕夭 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 诏夭蹖賳賴 蹖 "禺丕賱賯 賲賴乇亘丕賳" 卮乇賲 丿丕乇丿.賵賱蹖 賮賯胤 趩賳丿 氐賮丨賴 亘毓丿 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴 蹖 丕鬲禺丕匕 賲賵囟毓 爻賵賲貙 噩賴丕賳 亘蹖賳蹖 丕蹖 "丕賳爻丕賳 亘賳蹖丕丿" 丕乇丕蹖賴 賲蹖 讴賳丿貙 賲鬲乇噩賲 賲賵囟毓 丕賵 乇丕 鬲丕蹖蹖丿 讴乇丿賴 賵 丌賳 乇丕 鬲賮爻蹖乇蹖 胤亘蹖毓蹖 丕夭 蹖讴 丨丿蹖孬 賯丿爻蹖 賲蹖 禺賵丕賳丿
賵賱蹖 賲卮讴賱 賲賴賲 鬲乇 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲鬲乇噩賲 (亘賴 禺丕胤乇 賴乇丕爻 丕夭 毓賯丕蹖丿 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴)丿乇 賲賵丕乇丿蹖 丕賲丕賳鬲 乇丕 乇毓丕蹖鬲 賳讴乇丿賴 賵 鬲乇噩賲賴 乇丕 賲禺丿賵卮 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲.賲毓丕丿賱 賴丕蹖蹖 賴賲 讴賴 賲鬲乇噩賲 亘乇丕蹖 丕氐胤賱丕丨丕鬲 毓賱賲蹖 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 讴乇丿賴 丿乇 賲賵丕乇丿蹖 賳丕丿賯蹖賯 (賲丕賳賳丿 "鬲賳馗蹖賲 馗乇蹖賮"**) 賵 丿乇 賲賵丕乇丿蹖 睾蹖乇 賯丕亘賱 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 (賲丕賳賳丿 "毓丕賱賲蹖賳"***) 丕爻鬲
亘丕 丕蹖賳 丕賵氐丕賮 禺賵丿鬲丕賳 賯囟丕賵鬲 讴賳蹖丿 讴賴 讴丕乇 丕蹖賳 賲鬲乇噩賲 卮乇賲 丌賵乇 丕爻鬲 蹖丕 毓賯丕蹖丿 丌賳 賮蹖夭蹖讴丿丕賳! 丕賱亘鬲賴 亘乇 賲鬲乇噩賲丕賳 賲鬲賮賳賳 賵 賮賯賴 倬蹖卮賴 丕蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 丿爻鬲 丨乇噩蹖 賳蹖爻鬲. 丕夭 賳丕卮乇蹖 趩賵賳 賳蹖 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 賲蹖 乇賵丿 讴賴 亘乇 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖卮 賳馗丕乇鬲 讴賳丿
...............................
*Popular Science
**Fine-tuning
***Multiverse
November 26, 2021
N : 10.....0 (36 zero) This number measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them , Only a short-lived micro universe could exist if N had a few fewer zeros: no animals could grow larger than insects, and there would be no time for biological evolution.
O: whose value is 0.007 , specifies the strength with which atomic nuclei link together and how all of Earth's atoms are formed. Its value determines how the Sun's power is distributed and, more importantly, how stars convert hydrogen into all of the periodic table's atoms.
The cosmic number 惟 (omega) : quantifies the amount of matter in our universe, including galaxies, diffuse gas, and dark matter, it also tells us how important gravity and expansion energy are in the cosmos.
fourth number, 位 (lambda): was the biggest scientific news of 1998. An unsuspected new force a cosmic antigravity controls the expansion of our universe
Q: which represents the ratio of two fundamental energies and is about 1/100,000 in value. If Q were even smaller, the universe would be inert and structureless; if Q were much larger, it would be a violent place
D : It is the number of spatial dimensions in our world
猸愨瓙 because this is just a classic science book
O: whose value is 0.007 , specifies the strength with which atomic nuclei link together and how all of Earth's atoms are formed. Its value determines how the Sun's power is distributed and, more importantly, how stars convert hydrogen into all of the periodic table's atoms.
The cosmic number 惟 (omega) : quantifies the amount of matter in our universe, including galaxies, diffuse gas, and dark matter, it also tells us how important gravity and expansion energy are in the cosmos.
fourth number, 位 (lambda): was the biggest scientific news of 1998. An unsuspected new force a cosmic antigravity controls the expansion of our universe
Q: which represents the ratio of two fundamental energies and is about 1/100,000 in value. If Q were even smaller, the universe would be inert and structureless; if Q were much larger, it would be a violent place
D : It is the number of spatial dimensions in our world
猸愨瓙 because this is just a classic science book
February 24, 2012
Martin Rees is the Astronomer Royal of Great Britain (since 1995) and is a skilled writer on matters astronomical for the general public. In this book he describes six numerical constants that lie at the heart of knowledge about the universe at the turn of the millennium (the book was published in 1999). His subjects range from fundamental particle forces to the mysterious "dark energy" as represented by lambda, the force believed responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe. At only 160 or so pages, this book is necessarily short on detail, but Rees presents a very readable introduction to some fascinating science.
July 5, 2014
I never rate a book before finishing it, but this one is an exception.
October 9, 2013
Six numbers: if any was altered in a very small degree, the universe would not have permitted life to develop.
For example, if gravity wasn't exactly this weak comparing to other forces in the atom, but not weaker, the universe either would have collapsed right after Big Bang, or would have expanded so fast that no stars, galaxies, planetary systems could've formed.
Thus, no potential for life.
Writing and readability
Rees makes his case of fine tuning with regard to life very convincing. The book is written for the lay reader, and it's decidedly a must-read for anyone interested in cosmology, astronomy, physics. It's rare that I find books for popularizing science that don't have the faults of being clumsy written or assuming a much higher level of knowledge that they're advertised for. To bring science down to earth is no easy enterprise, and Rees, , succeeds amazingly.
The book makes many comparisons of the numbers and ratios it speaks of, with every day examples, or it creates elocvently frame by frame images, to convey just how precise (small or big) the numbers are. This is done so well that it leaves you feeling you now really - really - know more, understand the universe better, and estimate the extreme unlikeliness of our universe to turn out just right for life.
The writing style does wonders to convey to the reader a powerful case for the fine tuning of each number.
Critique
However, the thesis doesn't stand up to basic philosophical/logical objections.
Rees compares what would happen if each number varies, assuming everything else is equal. One at a time. And concludes from it, that they're extremely fine-tuned. However, what would happen if you vary two numbers at a time? How about three? How about varying relations between one of these numbers and the other elements, which Rees combines with it (according to laws of physics of our universe) to yield his results of dead universes?
Varying one at a time is not a throughout investigation. I can't conclude from it *anything*.
Example. Let us say we have six integer numbers, and their sum is 1000. Let us say that a "life-permitting sum" is in the range 999 and 1001.
If I vary one of the numbers, with 1 (plus or minus 1), I still get about 1000. If I vary that number with 2 (plus or minus 2), I no longer get my goal sum. If I vary it more, the sum will never be in the goal range. I had only two permitted variations.
But, if I vary 2 numbers at a time, I can obviously "succeed" with significantly more variations. If I vary 3 numbers at a time, ever more.
If I also accept that the "law" can be changed (the function may be a sum, or a product, or an exponential function, etc), I can have way more winning combinations.
I may have more failures than successes, true, but I have a bigger pool of wins, meaning the numbers themselves are not "just about right".
Rees' fine-tuning thesis assumes varying one number at a time, which is only a slice of the research to get a whole range of (potentially) life-permitting universes. After it limits itself this way, it asks for an explanation for such an improbable event of each number being exactly right.
I'll say it's not a defensible position, from a logical-philosophical perspective.
Rees' possible answers to his question are the multiverse theory and the creationist hypothesis, with a nod in the direction of a possible unified theory that will eventually explain why these numbers had to be as they are. Since I don't think the question was entirely correct to begin with, I don't feel compelled to jump to his conclusions yet.
Critique of the critique
When I read the book, I was left with the question: is fine-tuning, in the current mainstream physics and cosmology, assuming variation of one number at a time, and drawing conclusions from only it?
I don't know, I'm no physicist, and while I feel I learned from this book (and it's Cosmology 101!), I will say that the reasoning itself at the basis of the argument is flawed. However, it seems I received my answer, from another direction.
This week, in the discussion on Manny's review of The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, he quotes another cosmologist, Barnes, a supporter of fine-tuning theories. With this occasion (with this occasion I read Rees' book as well), I read more of Barnes' blog and articles, and I came upon this:
This gives me my answer, in no uncertain terms:
There is an objection to fine-tuning that goes like this: all the fine-tuning cases involve varying one variable only, keeping all other variables fixed at their value in our universe, and then calculating the life-permitting range on that one variable. But, if you let more than one variable vary at a time, there turns out to be a range of life-permitting universes. So the universe is not fine-tuned for life.
This is a myth. The claim quoted by our questioner is totally wrong. The vast majority of fine-tuning/anthropic papers, from the very earliest papers in the 70鈥瞫 until today, vary many parameters.
Also, further down the page, Barnes refers to this book:
This myth may have started because, when fine-tuning is presented to lay audiences, it is often illustrated using one-parameter limits. Martin Rees, for example, does this in his excellent book 鈥淛ust Six Numbers鈥�. Rees knows that the limits involve more than one parameter 鈥� he derived many of those limits. But equation (1) above would be far too intimidating in a popular level book.
Indeed, I got my answer, spot on! The equation noted is above my (undergrad and forgotten) math level. However, the question I had while I was reading Rees' book had to do with internal logic of his thesis.
The road ahead
Which raises another question: what is then, the actual thesis/question of fine-tuning literature today?
According to Barnes, the only constraint in varying parameters to get possible universes, is for these universes to be logically possible. (non-contradictory)
That's a bold claim, if I ever saw one. And I mean bold. Particularly surprising when Barnes explicitly states that an universe is defined by (initial conditions, constants, laws of physics), and, according to him, *all three* are fair game, for the variance experiment, including laws of physics. I should add though, the claim strikes me as methodologically correct, because what else is there to assume about the possible universes? We can't necessarily assume they obey the physical laws that may have been set from the initial conditions (which we vary!) of our Big Bang for our universe. But the magnitude of the task, even if there are mathematical tools to make it more reasonable, leaves me in a combination of awe and disbelief.
Once she chose their universe(s) to examine, the fine-tuning-interested cosmologist then solves the equations for those possible universes. If the universe is not self-consistent, then it's trashed. Then estimate the probability for the universe under examination (actually class of universes) to be life-permitting.
The purpose: estimate the probability of life-permitting universes in the set of possible universes.
This is my current understanding of Barnes' paper and blog, and with them, a certain direction on fine-tuning today. I'd have more to say about those logically possible only universes (!), but I guess I'd better wrap up this review and read more.
Conclusion
Rees doesn't claim for his book to have another purpose than it does: to make general readership understand better a slice of one of the problems of cosmology today. He succeeds very well, perhaps too well. Apparently, we, lay readers, might get easily from it a too limited but powerful impression about the sides of the controversy of fine-tuning. :)
Luckily, the same is not the case on physics and cosmology. Controversies aside, I think this 101 in cosmology is one of the best written books popularizing science. Very recommended, and easy to read.
This work by is licensed under a .
February 9, 2012
Meh. That about sums up my feelings on this book.
When I finally got my hands on this book I was so excited. I expected to be blown away by the 6 numbers and the perfection to which they were tuned to allow life to emerge in our universe. Instead I was bored at times, and definitely not blown away. There is a show on the History channel called 'The Universe', which at times is over the top, but in this case they have done a better job of getting the point across then Rees has. This book is basically the same as Rees' book , just presented slightly differently. I wasn't all that impressed with that book either, so perhaps I am just not a Rees fan.
Anyway, on to the facts. Here is an excerpt from the first chapter explaining the 6 numbers and their meanings:
1. N=1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them. If N had a few less zeros, only a short-lived miniature universe could exist, thus not allowing enough time for evolution.
2. 袆=0.007. It defines how atomic nuclei bind together and how atoms are made. Its value controls the power from the Sun and, more sensitively, how stars transmute hydrogen into all the atoms of the periodic table. If 袆 were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist.
3. 惟 (omega) is the amount of material in our universe 鈥� galaxies, gas, and 鈥榙ark matter鈥�. If this were too high relative to a particular 鈥榗ritical鈥� value, the universe would have collapsed long ago; had it been too low, no galaxies of stars would have formed.
4. 位 (lambda) controls the expansion of our universe, even though it has no discernible effect on scales less than a billion light-years. Fortunately for us 位 is very small. Otherwise its effect would have stopped galaxies and stars from forming, and cosmic evolution would have been stifled before it could even begin.
5. The fabric of our universe depends on one number, Q, which represents the ratio of two fundamental energies and is about 1/100,000 in value. If Q were smaller, the universe would be inert and structureless; if Q were larger, it would be a violent place, where no stars or solar systems could survive, dominated by vast black holes.
6. The number of spatial dimensions in our world, D, equals three. Life couldn鈥檛 exist if D were two or four. Time is a fourth dimension, but distinctly different from the others in that it has a built-in arrow: we 鈥榤ove鈥� only towards the future.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't recommend this book. There was just no excitement or spark, and I really couldn't wait to be finished with it.
When I finally got my hands on this book I was so excited. I expected to be blown away by the 6 numbers and the perfection to which they were tuned to allow life to emerge in our universe. Instead I was bored at times, and definitely not blown away. There is a show on the History channel called 'The Universe', which at times is over the top, but in this case they have done a better job of getting the point across then Rees has. This book is basically the same as Rees' book , just presented slightly differently. I wasn't all that impressed with that book either, so perhaps I am just not a Rees fan.
Anyway, on to the facts. Here is an excerpt from the first chapter explaining the 6 numbers and their meanings:
1. N=1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them. If N had a few less zeros, only a short-lived miniature universe could exist, thus not allowing enough time for evolution.
2. 袆=0.007. It defines how atomic nuclei bind together and how atoms are made. Its value controls the power from the Sun and, more sensitively, how stars transmute hydrogen into all the atoms of the periodic table. If 袆 were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist.
3. 惟 (omega) is the amount of material in our universe 鈥� galaxies, gas, and 鈥榙ark matter鈥�. If this were too high relative to a particular 鈥榗ritical鈥� value, the universe would have collapsed long ago; had it been too low, no galaxies of stars would have formed.
4. 位 (lambda) controls the expansion of our universe, even though it has no discernible effect on scales less than a billion light-years. Fortunately for us 位 is very small. Otherwise its effect would have stopped galaxies and stars from forming, and cosmic evolution would have been stifled before it could even begin.
5. The fabric of our universe depends on one number, Q, which represents the ratio of two fundamental energies and is about 1/100,000 in value. If Q were smaller, the universe would be inert and structureless; if Q were larger, it would be a violent place, where no stars or solar systems could survive, dominated by vast black holes.
6. The number of spatial dimensions in our world, D, equals three. Life couldn鈥檛 exist if D were two or four. Time is a fourth dimension, but distinctly different from the others in that it has a built-in arrow: we 鈥榤ove鈥� only towards the future.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't recommend this book. There was just no excitement or spark, and I really couldn't wait to be finished with it.
August 9, 2019
丕賳丕 丕賳鬲賴賷鬲 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丿賴 賲賳 毓丿丞 兀賷丕賲 賵丨賯賷賯丞 賲賳 賯鬲賴丕 賰賱 賲丕 丕賮鬲賰乇 禺丕鬲賲丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵鬲毓賱賷賯 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘乇睾賲 賰賱丕賲賴 胤賵丕賱 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱丕 兀乇賶 鬲毓賱賷賯 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 賯賵賱賴 鬲毓丕賱賶 賮賷 爻賵乇丞 丕賱噩丕孬賷丞 丕賱兀賷丕鬲 佗伲-佗侑:
{兀賻賮賻乇賻亍賻賷邸鬲賻 賲賻賳賽 俦鬲賻賾禺賻匕賻 廿賽賱賻侔賴賻賴購邾 賴賻賵賻賶侔賴購 賵賻兀賻囟賻賱賻賾賴購 俦賱賱賻賾賴購 毓賻賱賻賶侔 毓賽賱邸賲贃 賵賻禺賻鬲賻賲賻 毓賻賱賻賶侔 爻賻賲邸毓賽賴賽郐 賵賻賯賻賱邸亘賽賴賽郐 賵賻噩賻毓賻賱賻 毓賻賱賻賶侔 亘賻氐賻乇賽賴賽郐 睾賽卮賻侔賵賻丞贄 賮賻賲賻賳 賷賻賴邸丿賽賷賴賽 賲賽賳邰 亘賻毓邸丿賽 俦賱賱賻賾賴賽蹥 兀賻賮賻賱賻丕 鬲賻匕賻賰賻賾乇購賵賳賻
(Sahih International)
Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah ? Then will you not be reminded?
賵賻賯賻丕賱購賵丕賿 賲賻丕 賴賽賷賻 廿賽賱賻賾丕 丨賻賷賻丕鬲購賳賻丕 俦賱丿購賾賳邸賷賻丕 賳賻賲購賵鬲購 賵賻賳賻丨邸賷賻丕 賵賻賲賻丕 賷購賴邸賱賽賰購賳賻丌 廿賽賱賻賾丕 俦賱丿賻賾賴邸乇購蹥 賵賻賲賻丕 賱賻賴購賲 亘賽匕賻侔賱賽賰賻 賲賽賳邸 毓賽賱邸賲賺蹡 廿賽賳邸 賴購賲邸 廿賽賱賻賾丕 賷賻馗購賳購賾賵賳賻
(Sahih International)
And they say, "There is not but our worldly life; we die and live, and nothing destroys us except time." And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming.
賵賻廿賽匕賻丕 鬲購鬲邸賱賻賶侔 毓賻賱賻賷邸賴賽賲邸 亍賻丕賷賻侔鬲購賳賻丕 亘賻賷賽賾賳賻侔鬲贃 賲賻賾丕 賰賻丕賳賻 丨購噩賻賾鬲賻賴購賲邸 廿賽賱賻賾丌 兀賻賳 賯賻丕賱購賵丕賿 俦卅邸鬲購賵丕賿 亘賽賭賻贁丕亘賻丌卅賽賳賻丌 廿賽賳 賰購賳鬲購賲邸 氐賻侔丿賽賯賽賷賳賻
(Sahih International)
And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, their argument is only that they say, "Bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful."
賯購賱賽 俦賱賱賻賾賴購 賷購丨邸賷賽賷賰購賲邸 孬購賲賻賾 賷購賲賽賷鬲購賰購賲邸 孬購賲賻賾 賷賻噩邸賲賻毓購賰購賲邸 廿賽賱賻賶侔 賷賻賵邸賲賽 俦賱邸賯賽賷賻侔賲賻丞賽 賱賻丕 乇賻賷邸亘賻 賮賽賷賴賽 賵賻賱賻侔賰賽賳賻賾 兀賻賰邸孬賻乇賻 俦賱賳賻賾丕爻賽 賱賻丕 賷賻毓邸賱賻賲購賵賳賻
(Sahih International)
Say, " Allah causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will assemble you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt, but most of the people do not know."
賵賻賱賽賱賻賾賴賽 賲購賱邸賰購 俦賱爻賻賾賲賻侔賵賻侔鬲賽 賵賻俦賱邸兀賻乇邸囟賽蹥 賵賻賷賻賵邸賲賻 鬲賻賯購賵賲購 俦賱爻賻賾丕毓賻丞購 賷賻賵邸賲賻卅賽匕贃 賷賻禺邸爻賻乇購 俦賱邸賲購亘邸胤賽賱購賵賳賻
(Sahih International)
And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. And the Day the Hour appears - that Day the falsifiers will lose.}
賳爻兀賱 丕賱賱賴 丕賱毓丕賮賷賴 賵丕賱丨賲丿 賱賱賴 毓賱賶 賳毓賲丞 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲 賵賰賮賶 亘賴丕 賳毓賲丞.
{兀賻賮賻乇賻亍賻賷邸鬲賻 賲賻賳賽 俦鬲賻賾禺賻匕賻 廿賽賱賻侔賴賻賴購邾 賴賻賵賻賶侔賴購 賵賻兀賻囟賻賱賻賾賴購 俦賱賱賻賾賴購 毓賻賱賻賶侔 毓賽賱邸賲贃 賵賻禺賻鬲賻賲賻 毓賻賱賻賶侔 爻賻賲邸毓賽賴賽郐 賵賻賯賻賱邸亘賽賴賽郐 賵賻噩賻毓賻賱賻 毓賻賱賻賶侔 亘賻氐賻乇賽賴賽郐 睾賽卮賻侔賵賻丞贄 賮賻賲賻賳 賷賻賴邸丿賽賷賴賽 賲賽賳邰 亘賻毓邸丿賽 俦賱賱賻賾賴賽蹥 兀賻賮賻賱賻丕 鬲賻匕賻賰賻賾乇購賵賳賻
(Sahih International)
Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah ? Then will you not be reminded?
賵賻賯賻丕賱購賵丕賿 賲賻丕 賴賽賷賻 廿賽賱賻賾丕 丨賻賷賻丕鬲購賳賻丕 俦賱丿購賾賳邸賷賻丕 賳賻賲購賵鬲購 賵賻賳賻丨邸賷賻丕 賵賻賲賻丕 賷購賴邸賱賽賰購賳賻丌 廿賽賱賻賾丕 俦賱丿賻賾賴邸乇購蹥 賵賻賲賻丕 賱賻賴購賲 亘賽匕賻侔賱賽賰賻 賲賽賳邸 毓賽賱邸賲賺蹡 廿賽賳邸 賴購賲邸 廿賽賱賻賾丕 賷賻馗購賳購賾賵賳賻
(Sahih International)
And they say, "There is not but our worldly life; we die and live, and nothing destroys us except time." And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming.
賵賻廿賽匕賻丕 鬲購鬲邸賱賻賶侔 毓賻賱賻賷邸賴賽賲邸 亍賻丕賷賻侔鬲購賳賻丕 亘賻賷賽賾賳賻侔鬲贃 賲賻賾丕 賰賻丕賳賻 丨購噩賻賾鬲賻賴購賲邸 廿賽賱賻賾丌 兀賻賳 賯賻丕賱購賵丕賿 俦卅邸鬲購賵丕賿 亘賽賭賻贁丕亘賻丌卅賽賳賻丌 廿賽賳 賰購賳鬲購賲邸 氐賻侔丿賽賯賽賷賳賻
(Sahih International)
And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, their argument is only that they say, "Bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful."
賯購賱賽 俦賱賱賻賾賴購 賷購丨邸賷賽賷賰購賲邸 孬購賲賻賾 賷購賲賽賷鬲購賰購賲邸 孬購賲賻賾 賷賻噩邸賲賻毓購賰購賲邸 廿賽賱賻賶侔 賷賻賵邸賲賽 俦賱邸賯賽賷賻侔賲賻丞賽 賱賻丕 乇賻賷邸亘賻 賮賽賷賴賽 賵賻賱賻侔賰賽賳賻賾 兀賻賰邸孬賻乇賻 俦賱賳賻賾丕爻賽 賱賻丕 賷賻毓邸賱賻賲購賵賳賻
(Sahih International)
Say, " Allah causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will assemble you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt, but most of the people do not know."
賵賻賱賽賱賻賾賴賽 賲購賱邸賰購 俦賱爻賻賾賲賻侔賵賻侔鬲賽 賵賻俦賱邸兀賻乇邸囟賽蹥 賵賻賷賻賵邸賲賻 鬲賻賯購賵賲購 俦賱爻賻賾丕毓賻丞購 賷賻賵邸賲賻卅賽匕贃 賷賻禺邸爻賻乇購 俦賱邸賲購亘邸胤賽賱購賵賳賻
(Sahih International)
And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. And the Day the Hour appears - that Day the falsifiers will lose.}
賳爻兀賱 丕賱賱賴 丕賱毓丕賮賷賴 賵丕賱丨賲丿 賱賱賴 毓賱賶 賳毓賲丞 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲 賵賰賮賶 亘賴丕 賳毓賲丞.
October 12, 2017
This is a little out of date now, and some of the predictions are almost adorably wrong at this point 鈥� that we would understand dark matter and dark energy, and that we鈥檇 have a unified Theory of Everything explaining how all the forces we know of are tied together. But this book is still useful in explaining, in clear and simple terms, why exactly people say the universe has been 鈥渇ine-tuned鈥�. It鈥檚 not the most in-depth treatment out there, but I think it鈥檇 be very good for getting to grips with the basics.
In summary: there are several numbers underlying the universe which are constant, and they are very precisely definable down to multiple decimal places鈥� and if you change them in any way, you make our existence as we know it impossible. There are problems with this, of course; life doesn鈥檛 have to look exactly like us to be viable, and of course we鈥檙e in a world that is perfectly tuned for us to exist. That doesn鈥檛, in and of itself, prove anything. I know people often use it to support the idea of multiple universes, all varying slightly 鈥� but something can be made just once and be utterly unique and turn out to be perfect for something, even if you don鈥檛 make multiples.
This is, honestly, why I find physics so frightening. It鈥檚 all so terribly unlikely, and we don鈥檛 understand it, and against all this it becomes very apparent, to my mind, how small and alone and temporary each human being is.
It鈥檚 also fascinating, even for those who prefer biology as a science, like one you could probably name鈥�
In summary: there are several numbers underlying the universe which are constant, and they are very precisely definable down to multiple decimal places鈥� and if you change them in any way, you make our existence as we know it impossible. There are problems with this, of course; life doesn鈥檛 have to look exactly like us to be viable, and of course we鈥檙e in a world that is perfectly tuned for us to exist. That doesn鈥檛, in and of itself, prove anything. I know people often use it to support the idea of multiple universes, all varying slightly 鈥� but something can be made just once and be utterly unique and turn out to be perfect for something, even if you don鈥檛 make multiples.
This is, honestly, why I find physics so frightening. It鈥檚 all so terribly unlikely, and we don鈥檛 understand it, and against all this it becomes very apparent, to my mind, how small and alone and temporary each human being is.
It鈥檚 also fascinating, even for those who prefer biology as a science, like one you could probably name鈥�
June 6, 2016
Science. Not much to review here, trying to understand physics is hard enough as it is.
January 4, 2015
As its title suggests, this 1999 book by Martin Rees, the UK's Astronomer Royal, addresses six numbers that determine whether a universe can support life as we know it. The first number Rees calls N, which is the ratio of the gravitational force to the electromagnetic force and is about 10^36. He explains how, if this ratio were less, and therefore gravity was relatively stronger, stars would be much smaller and would burn much quicker. There would not be sufficient time for life to evolve.
The second number, epsilon (蔚), dictates the strength of the strong nuclear force. Rees refers to 蔚 being equal to 0.007 and this denotes the proportion of energy that is released when hydrogen fuses into helium. If this force was weaker than it is (say, 0.006), then nuclear fusion wouldn't happen; we would have stars full of hydrogen but there would be no nuclear reactions. Conversely, a stronger force (say, 0.008) would have led to protons joining with other protons shortly after the Big Bang so that there would be no hydrogen left to fuel the stars. Either way, life as we know it would not have been possible.
The third number is omega (惟), which Rees defines as the ratio of the actual density of the universe to the critical density needed for gravity to bring cosmic expansion to a halt. If the ratio were too high, the universe would collapse in a big crunch; too low and expansion would be too fast to allow matter time to condense into stars and galaxies. Discussion of 惟 led into a discourse on dark matter, which accounts for about 90% of the universe but which could be made up of entities with masses ranged from 10^鈥�33 g (neutrinos) up to 10^39 g (heavy black holes), an uncertainty of more than seventy powers of ten. As Rees points out, our ignorance on this subject is somewhat embarrassing.
Lambda (位) is the fourth number, which concerns whether the expansion of the universe is increasing or decreasing. In fact, 位 is almost, but not exactly, zero; it is a measure of dark energy although this phrase is not used by Rees. 位 was first postulated by Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity as a form of anti-gravity to achieve a static universe but he later gave up this idea when it was shown by Hubble that the universe was actually expanding. Einstein later referred to his abandonment of this concept as his "greatest blunder".
Q is the fifth number and this refers to the amplitude of the irregularities in the density of the universe shortly after the Big Bang. If the universe had been completely homogenous then there would have been no areas where gravity was slightly greater than other areas, such areas seeding the formation of stars and galaxies. Q has a value of about 10^-5 which reflects the fact that gravity within galaxies is exceedingly weak. This value is crucial; were it much smaller, or much bigger, the texture of the universe would be quite different, and less conducive to the emergence of life forms. A much smaller value of Q would stop galaxies forming, whilst if much larger it would result in super large galaxies but with black holes rather than stars.
The last of the six numbers Rees calls D which is the number of spatial dimensions. In our universe D is equal to 3 and Rees argues that if D were not equal to 3 then life would not exist.
I can't say that I really enjoyed this book and, as a consequence, it took me a long time to finish it. Undoubtedly, Rees is an expert in his field but the excitement that he must feel for his subject didn't come across to me. His account didn't grip me and it seemed to me to be rather disjointed. For example, whilst the book is concerned with six numbers, it has eleven chapters, with three of the extra five being interspersed with the six on the numbers; I found these interruptions disrupted the flow of the book. Notwithstanding these criticisms, some parts of the book were thought provoking and prompt me to read more accounts on cosmology. Essentially, it is a book about the Anthropic Principle although this is another term that the author never uses.
Aside from the discussions on the six numbers, there were some interesting observations in places. For instance, I was surprised to read that it was as early as the late 14th century that it was postulated that planetary systems were probably commonplace around other stars and that some of these planets would undoubtedly hold intelligent life. This concept was the brain child of the far-sighted Giordano Bruno but, needless to say, his views were considered heretical by the Church and for this and other "crimes" he was burnt at the stake in 1600. It was also fascinating to learn that at the time Rees wrote his book there had only been one instance where the precursor star of a super nova was known. This was in 1987 and before it exploded the star in question had been a blue one of about twenty solar masses.
The second number, epsilon (蔚), dictates the strength of the strong nuclear force. Rees refers to 蔚 being equal to 0.007 and this denotes the proportion of energy that is released when hydrogen fuses into helium. If this force was weaker than it is (say, 0.006), then nuclear fusion wouldn't happen; we would have stars full of hydrogen but there would be no nuclear reactions. Conversely, a stronger force (say, 0.008) would have led to protons joining with other protons shortly after the Big Bang so that there would be no hydrogen left to fuel the stars. Either way, life as we know it would not have been possible.
The third number is omega (惟), which Rees defines as the ratio of the actual density of the universe to the critical density needed for gravity to bring cosmic expansion to a halt. If the ratio were too high, the universe would collapse in a big crunch; too low and expansion would be too fast to allow matter time to condense into stars and galaxies. Discussion of 惟 led into a discourse on dark matter, which accounts for about 90% of the universe but which could be made up of entities with masses ranged from 10^鈥�33 g (neutrinos) up to 10^39 g (heavy black holes), an uncertainty of more than seventy powers of ten. As Rees points out, our ignorance on this subject is somewhat embarrassing.
Lambda (位) is the fourth number, which concerns whether the expansion of the universe is increasing or decreasing. In fact, 位 is almost, but not exactly, zero; it is a measure of dark energy although this phrase is not used by Rees. 位 was first postulated by Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity as a form of anti-gravity to achieve a static universe but he later gave up this idea when it was shown by Hubble that the universe was actually expanding. Einstein later referred to his abandonment of this concept as his "greatest blunder".
Q is the fifth number and this refers to the amplitude of the irregularities in the density of the universe shortly after the Big Bang. If the universe had been completely homogenous then there would have been no areas where gravity was slightly greater than other areas, such areas seeding the formation of stars and galaxies. Q has a value of about 10^-5 which reflects the fact that gravity within galaxies is exceedingly weak. This value is crucial; were it much smaller, or much bigger, the texture of the universe would be quite different, and less conducive to the emergence of life forms. A much smaller value of Q would stop galaxies forming, whilst if much larger it would result in super large galaxies but with black holes rather than stars.
The last of the six numbers Rees calls D which is the number of spatial dimensions. In our universe D is equal to 3 and Rees argues that if D were not equal to 3 then life would not exist.
I can't say that I really enjoyed this book and, as a consequence, it took me a long time to finish it. Undoubtedly, Rees is an expert in his field but the excitement that he must feel for his subject didn't come across to me. His account didn't grip me and it seemed to me to be rather disjointed. For example, whilst the book is concerned with six numbers, it has eleven chapters, with three of the extra five being interspersed with the six on the numbers; I found these interruptions disrupted the flow of the book. Notwithstanding these criticisms, some parts of the book were thought provoking and prompt me to read more accounts on cosmology. Essentially, it is a book about the Anthropic Principle although this is another term that the author never uses.
Aside from the discussions on the six numbers, there were some interesting observations in places. For instance, I was surprised to read that it was as early as the late 14th century that it was postulated that planetary systems were probably commonplace around other stars and that some of these planets would undoubtedly hold intelligent life. This concept was the brain child of the far-sighted Giordano Bruno but, needless to say, his views were considered heretical by the Church and for this and other "crimes" he was burnt at the stake in 1600. It was also fascinating to learn that at the time Rees wrote his book there had only been one instance where the precursor star of a super nova was known. This was in 1987 and before it exploded the star in question had been a blue one of about twenty solar masses.
April 21, 2025
Fascinating and thought provoking. The universe clearly seems tuned for life... the reason remains an open question.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 239 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.