What do you think?
Rate this book
Home Is Where the Wind Blows: Chapters from a Cosmologist's Life
One of this century's most eminent scientist offers a revealing and charming account of his life and work. Mathematician, physicist, astronomer, cosmologist and originator of the term the 'Big Bang'-Sir Fred has always been ready and able to challenge established thinking.
443 pages, Hardcover
First published April 26, 1994
85 people want to read
About the author
Fred Hoyle
116 books180 followersProfessor Sir Fred Hoyle was one of the most distinguished, creative, and controversial scientists of the twentieth century. He was a Fellow of St John’s College (1939-1972, Honorary Fellow 1973-2001), was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1957, held the Plumian Chair of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy (1958-1972), established the Institute of Theoretical Astronomy in Cambridge (now part of the Institute of Astronomy), and (in 1972) received a knighthood for his services to astronomy.
Hoyle was a keen mountain climber, an avid player of chess, a science fiction writer, a populariser of science, and the man who coined the phrase 'The Big Bang'.
Hoyle was a keen mountain climber, an avid player of chess, a science fiction writer, a populariser of science, and the man who coined the phrase 'The Big Bang'.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
March 30, 2014
If you know something about Fred Hoyle, this book, the autobiography he published when he was 79, is a terrifying piece of writing. Hoyle was a great scientist who was responsible for at least one absolutely first-rate piece of work, the explanation of how the various chemical elements are formed in stars. ("We are all stardust"). He was also a talented author, whose popular science books inspired a generation of younger researchers, and an all-round supersmart guy. The first two thirds of this book, covering the period up to the 50s, reminded me more than once of Feynman's memoirs. Hoyle has the same gift for finding clever solutions to an extraordinary range of problems, both practical and scientific, the same flair for telling outrageous anecdotes about famous scientists, the same fearless approach to life. How can you not admire someone who turns up at a secret radar establishment at the beginning of WW II, candidly admitting that he doesn't know the first thing about radar, and then proceeds to make several major inventions without even thinking he's done anything special? Or who descends a treacherous mountain road in the Sierras in a car with faulty brakes, trusting that he'll be able to use the technique a Canadian friend has taught him of bouncing your vehicle off the snowbanks? Or who writes a popular SF novel for fun in his spare time and has a critical essay written about it by Carl Jung? If you're not completely won over after reading these and numerous similar stories, you're made of much stronger stuff than I am. But, as the book progressed, there were more and more things that made me stop and wonder. Hoyle is best remembered for championing the Steady State scenario, which almost managed to rival the mainstream Big Bang theory in popularity between 1950 and 1965, and it's barely mentioned. Why? And there is also next to nothing about his even more controversial ideas concerning evolution and the origins of life, which occupied a good ten years of his career. I couldn't figure out what was going on. Surely he wasn't just going to skip all this crucial material?
Alas, it all becomes clear as you pull into the last hundred pages. First, the exciting scientific narrative is abandoned in favor of a paralyzingly dull series of descriptions of committee meetings and academic infighting, which lead to Hoyle resigning his ultra-prestigious Cambridge chair over a point of principle which I'm afraid I've already forgotten three hours after reading it. And then we get the bits of science that were omitted earlier. The Steady State is saved for the final, utterly incoherent, chapter, which tells you that the Big Bang theory explains nothing, is merely the product of scientific groupthink, and has made no progress for the last 25 years; this a year or two after COBE's triumphant measurement of anisotropy in the Cosmic Background Radiation. The cosmology is followed by some extremely naive quantum mysticism, which claims that conscious beings create the universe by observing it, and finally a couple of pages outlining an even loopier idea according to which (I think) our immortal souls live in another universe, controlling our corporeal selves through some kind of intangible link. It crossed my mind to wonder whether Hoyle in his final days had discovered Scientology.
It is horrible to think that someone as brilliant as Hoyle could suffer such a fate. What is even more horrible is that the book is actually very well written, so that the contrast between the lucidity of the early chapters and the insanity of the late ones is rendered as sharp as possible. You get the impression that Hoyle was, at some level, aware of what had happened to him and wanted to tell people about it. It would make a great movie; I'd cast John Turturro as Hoyle and Jennifer Connelly as his loyal and beautiful wife, with the Coen brothers directing and producing. If by some chance you know them, please drop the suggestion. I honestly think it has potential.
Alas, it all becomes clear as you pull into the last hundred pages. First, the exciting scientific narrative is abandoned in favor of a paralyzingly dull series of descriptions of committee meetings and academic infighting, which lead to Hoyle resigning his ultra-prestigious Cambridge chair over a point of principle which I'm afraid I've already forgotten three hours after reading it. And then we get the bits of science that were omitted earlier. The Steady State is saved for the final, utterly incoherent, chapter, which tells you that the Big Bang theory explains nothing, is merely the product of scientific groupthink, and has made no progress for the last 25 years; this a year or two after COBE's triumphant measurement of anisotropy in the Cosmic Background Radiation. The cosmology is followed by some extremely naive quantum mysticism, which claims that conscious beings create the universe by observing it, and finally a couple of pages outlining an even loopier idea according to which (I think) our immortal souls live in another universe, controlling our corporeal selves through some kind of intangible link. It crossed my mind to wonder whether Hoyle in his final days had discovered Scientology.
It is horrible to think that someone as brilliant as Hoyle could suffer such a fate. What is even more horrible is that the book is actually very well written, so that the contrast between the lucidity of the early chapters and the insanity of the late ones is rendered as sharp as possible. You get the impression that Hoyle was, at some level, aware of what had happened to him and wanted to tell people about it. It would make a great movie; I'd cast John Turturro as Hoyle and Jennifer Connelly as his loyal and beautiful wife, with the Coen brothers directing and producing. If by some chance you know them, please drop the suggestion. I honestly think it has potential.
September 4, 2014
Fred's been my companion at breakfast so often this year that I suppose I shouldn't be surprised Manny's been a bit testy at times. I expect that question's been at the back of his mind 'If he's here for breakfast, where was he last night?' In fact I haven't taken Fred to bed, not once. It hasn't been a question of primness, loyalty or even the bed not being big enough for the three of us.
It's more Fred's unflagging enthusiasm, energy and opinionated observations of everything, bombarding the reader as an independent thinker might. One finds oneself stopping to reflect every few pages of a rather long book not because you reach some sort of sciencey stumbling block but because he's just presented a theory about 1920s hat fashion, or the efficacy of geese as domestic lawnmower or the reasons we organise into society. He carries you along in a way that is infectious, thrilling - and tiring. I love reading in bed, but this is more theoretical than practical. Mainly I fall asleep by the time I find my place. In the mornings, however, I'm irritatingly bouncy and chirpy and happy. That's the time to pick up Hoyle.
Hoyle was nothing if not stubborn. I'm thinking of something that plays only a small part in his chosen story....
Rest here:
http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpres...
It's more Fred's unflagging enthusiasm, energy and opinionated observations of everything, bombarding the reader as an independent thinker might. One finds oneself stopping to reflect every few pages of a rather long book not because you reach some sort of sciencey stumbling block but because he's just presented a theory about 1920s hat fashion, or the efficacy of geese as domestic lawnmower or the reasons we organise into society. He carries you along in a way that is infectious, thrilling - and tiring. I love reading in bed, but this is more theoretical than practical. Mainly I fall asleep by the time I find my place. In the mornings, however, I'm irritatingly bouncy and chirpy and happy. That's the time to pick up Hoyle.
Hoyle was nothing if not stubborn. I'm thinking of something that plays only a small part in his chosen story....
Rest here:
http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpres...
October 10, 2023
Wiele ciekawych doświadczeń wrażliwego i wnikliwego obserwatora. Jednak tam, gdzie mówił o swojej pracy naukowej, dla laika był niezrozumiały.
No i polityka brytyjskiej administracji uniwersyteckiej to nie jest mój konik - mój pech, że autor przedstawił ją niezwykle drobiazgowo...
No i polityka brytyjskiej administracji uniwersyteckiej to nie jest mój konik - mój pech, że autor przedstawił ją niezwykle drobiazgowo...
October 4, 2015
On pages 153-154 of his 1994 autobiography, "Home Is Where the Wind Blows", does Sir Fred Hoyle BLOW THE COVER ON THE BIGGEST LIE in "STALIN'S SCIENCE?"
http://www.researchgate.net/publicati...
1. Without any new data and without any discussion or debate, Fred Hoyle reports on pages 153-154 of his 1994 autobiography, "Home Is Where the Wind Blows", that mainstream opinions on the internal composition of the Sun were unanimously changed changed from:
_ a.) Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to
_ b.) Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946
2. Twelve years later in 1957, B2FH (Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle, “Synthesis of elements in stars,” Reviews of Modern Physics 29, 547-650) present data on neutron-capture cross-sections and abundances of neutron-capture products in the solar photosphere in such a way as to convince most solar and nuclear physicists hydrogen fusion is the way stars generate energy and make heavier elements out of hydrogen.
However, that is NOT TRUE. It was shown in 2005 that the 1957 data for neutron-capture cross-sections and abundances of seventy-two (72) different neutron-capture products in the solar photosphere reveal:
_ c.) About ten (~10) stages of solar mass-fractionation selectively enriching lighter atoms at the top of the solar photosphere, and
_ d.) The solar interior consists mostly of iron (Fe)
See “Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections”, paper #1033, 36th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference (LPSC), Houston, Texas, March 14-18, 2005.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc...
Thus, the experimental data published by B2FH in 1957 in fact FALSIFY:
_ e.) The 1946 change in the internal composition of the Sun from Fe to H, and
_ f.) The 1957 paper on element synthesis in stars from hydrogen-fusion
http://www.researchgate.net/publicati...
1. Without any new data and without any discussion or debate, Fred Hoyle reports on pages 153-154 of his 1994 autobiography, "Home Is Where the Wind Blows", that mainstream opinions on the internal composition of the Sun were unanimously changed changed from:
_ a.) Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to
_ b.) Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946
2. Twelve years later in 1957, B2FH (Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle, “Synthesis of elements in stars,” Reviews of Modern Physics 29, 547-650) present data on neutron-capture cross-sections and abundances of neutron-capture products in the solar photosphere in such a way as to convince most solar and nuclear physicists hydrogen fusion is the way stars generate energy and make heavier elements out of hydrogen.
However, that is NOT TRUE. It was shown in 2005 that the 1957 data for neutron-capture cross-sections and abundances of seventy-two (72) different neutron-capture products in the solar photosphere reveal:
_ c.) About ten (~10) stages of solar mass-fractionation selectively enriching lighter atoms at the top of the solar photosphere, and
_ d.) The solar interior consists mostly of iron (Fe)
See “Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections”, paper #1033, 36th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference (LPSC), Houston, Texas, March 14-18, 2005.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc...
Thus, the experimental data published by B2FH in 1957 in fact FALSIFY:
_ e.) The 1946 change in the internal composition of the Sun from Fe to H, and
_ f.) The 1957 paper on element synthesis in stars from hydrogen-fusion
April 25, 2011
Skipped to the last chapters where the philosophical parts are ( very good )
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews