|
|
This hard-backed book is a very comprehensive review of the present (2007) state of cosmology, albeit with a strong gravity bias, from a scientific perspective. There are no metaphysical or theological references, simply a number of yet to be exploded hypotheses with no application beyond death. The book is lavishly illustrated and up to date. There are virtually no mathematical equations in it; consequently, because of the profound nature of the subject, it does not make for easy reading. The text is highly concentrated and often technical. This is not a book for beginners, but those with a good grounding in the subject will find it very rewarding. The author definitely seems to favour the current Standard Model (ACDM), a critical density, geometrically flat universe filled with vacuum energy (the cosmological constant) and cold dark matter. The fact that gravity is so much weaker than electromagnetic force, which could have a much greater role, is hardly mentioned. It is very much a "Big Bang book". The micro world of atomic physics is often neglected in astronomy (by amateurs at least), but this book rightly includes it wherever necessary, at least a whole chapter opening up some of its mysteries. If you have often wondered what gluons and bosons are, herein will be revealed some of the mysteries, without having to understand the mathematics behind such things of the Schrödinger wave equation. The author does admit that big mysteries still remain, one of the main ones being the so called "unified field" theory which would unite Einstein's gravity theory with quantum theory. Gravity still stands apart from quantum theory, though since this book was published, two Canadian astronomers (Brownstein and Moffat), following observations of the Bullet galaxy cluster, produced a modified gravity theory which dispensed with any need for dark matter at all. Nicolson's book is really all about dark matter & energy, but is it conjecture? If you were to play the odds, then the overall weight of evidence would tend to support the main ideas propounded in Nicolson's book, but he certainly admits that we are still a long way from the truth. A book of this sort raises a fundamental question about the nature of scientific enquiry itself. Science does not discover laws of nature previously hidden from man. It formulates hypotheses, usually by emotionally charged flights of the imagination, about how things might work and if these hypotheses aid event prediction, they are accepted as useful until an event happens which disproves the theory. Such theories can never be proved - only ever disproved. The history of science supports this. Descartes thought of matter as being composed of unbreakable atoms. Rutherford split the atom and Descartes' theory was exploded. There is however an alternative approach, which has been subconsciously hidden by & or/from scientists generally following a decision made between the Royal Society and the Vatican, namely that the former would leave religion alone and the latter science alone (Secchi was an exception). Whatever the reason for this, it is surely no longer relevant today, though the split continues to perpetuate with the reason for it forgotten. True religion is one with true science. Religion is concerned with the relating of mankind to its original source, the Supreme first cause of all things. True religion is thus a higher science then that of material empirical research and the truths of religion are matters of knowledge, not of passive belief. It tells us that the basic principals of reality are three, namely Power, Form and Function, that they are not ultimately separate, but a Unity. It is time for a metanoya in the world's approach to discovery. Religion should be allowed to guide scientific endeavour, but only if religion is operating at a non-corruptible level, i.e., beyond "official" churchianity type interference. Cosmologists are not famous for their humility these days. If we imagine that the cells in our body have a dim consciousness of their own; they know only about their own little sphere: they have no idea what we are thinking or even up to. Perhaps even with our telescopes and fantastic theories, our real knowledge of the purpose behind cosmos is as dim as those cells' knowledge is of our own purposes. Given the framework he operates in, however, Nicolson's descriptions and understanding of his subject is terrific. He obviously loves cosmology and his knowledge of it is very broadly based. His descriptions are as clear as could be for such a complex subject, though I must admit to preferring ratios to describe some things, as Lord Rees does in his work on the 7 numbers. We are led into the subject gently at first, then the scenario starts to become more and more complex as the unanswered questions multiply. It would help if each chapter had a proper summary or if the punch lines were made bolder, to make future referrals easier. However, this is not always possible due to the amount of conjecture present - there is as yet no punch line in many cases. In conclusion, I would recommend
this book to anyone requiring an authoritative summary of the state
of modern cosmology, particularly if your preference is the Big Bang
theory. It has an index, image sources but no bibliography. However,
if you are after truth, it may only confuse you. Guy Duckworth |
