What do you think?
Rate this book
Frontiers Of Astronomy
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
416 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1955
4 people are currently reading
202 people want to read
About the author
Fred Hoyle
117 books174 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
November 11, 2012
Frontiers of Astronomy, first published in 1955, is one of the greatest popular science books ever written; according to
Origins
, it inspired a whole generation of future astronomers and astrophysicists. It is still well worth reading today, and I have rarely seen anything which so clearly shows you both what is good and what is bad about the popular science genre.
Let's first look at the bad. If you want to make fun of the book, it's hardly a challenge: large sections are just plain wrong. The final chapters make a spirited case for Hoyle's Steady State theory, according to which the Universe has no beginning in time; as it expands, new matter is continually created to fill in the gaps. In the light of our current knowledge, it seems almost incredible that anyone could have taken this idea seriously, but Hoyle does a fantastic job of making it sound, not just plausible, but almost compelling. You can see why so many people were convinced. But the presentation is clear-headed and responsible. Hoyle states unequivocally what would refute his pet theory, and it was exactly the things he mentions - radiation left over from the Big Bang, evidence that galaxies in our neighborhood are all roughly the same age, and evidence that the universe used to look substantially different - which killed Steady State in the 60s. Other things in the book which stand out as incorrect are galaxy formation (Hoyle doesn't know about dark matter or black holes, which are now thought to be crucial), and his extremely idiosyncratic ideas about the Earth (he doesn't believe in plate tectonics, he doesn't think oil is a fossil fuel, and he has some bizarre hypotheses about what caused the Ice Ages).
You may by now be thinking that the book is valueless except as a curiosity, but nothing could be further from the truth. In between the dodgy sections at the beginning on the Earth and the dodgy sections at the end on galaxies and the universe, rather more than half the book is about stars. Here, Hoyle is magnificent. Nearly all of what he writes is still in line with modern theory, and he explains it in beautiful, passionate prose. Among other things, he tells you how stars and planets are formed, how star formation is linked to the overall structure of the galaxy, the relationships between the different types of stars, how stars evolve over time, and how they are responsible for creating the heavy elements. Dante, who also loved the stars - famously, the final word in each of the three books of the Divina Commedia is stelle - would have been glued to the page. I immediately saw him putting Hoyle in the Eighth Sphere of the Paradiso, expounding on the lovely details of supernovae as the pilgrims rest for an hour before proceeding on their way to the Empyrean.
I have been thinking on and off all week about what this may tell us concerning modern popular science books. It is hard to escape the conclusion that they are also quite largely wrong. Perhaps, in 2060, people will look at Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe and find it equally hard to believe that we once thought space could have eleven dimensions; as far as I am aware, the empirical evidence in favor of string theory is not stronger than that Hoyle could muster to support Steady State. Obviously, I'm just guessing. But I strongly recommend Hoyle's book to anyone who likes reading popular science. It will give you perspective, and unless you're extremely knowledgeable about astrophysics you'll also learn a few fascinating things you didn't know.
Let's first look at the bad. If you want to make fun of the book, it's hardly a challenge: large sections are just plain wrong. The final chapters make a spirited case for Hoyle's Steady State theory, according to which the Universe has no beginning in time; as it expands, new matter is continually created to fill in the gaps. In the light of our current knowledge, it seems almost incredible that anyone could have taken this idea seriously, but Hoyle does a fantastic job of making it sound, not just plausible, but almost compelling. You can see why so many people were convinced. But the presentation is clear-headed and responsible. Hoyle states unequivocally what would refute his pet theory, and it was exactly the things he mentions - radiation left over from the Big Bang, evidence that galaxies in our neighborhood are all roughly the same age, and evidence that the universe used to look substantially different - which killed Steady State in the 60s. Other things in the book which stand out as incorrect are galaxy formation (Hoyle doesn't know about dark matter or black holes, which are now thought to be crucial), and his extremely idiosyncratic ideas about the Earth (he doesn't believe in plate tectonics, he doesn't think oil is a fossil fuel, and he has some bizarre hypotheses about what caused the Ice Ages).
You may by now be thinking that the book is valueless except as a curiosity, but nothing could be further from the truth. In between the dodgy sections at the beginning on the Earth and the dodgy sections at the end on galaxies and the universe, rather more than half the book is about stars. Here, Hoyle is magnificent. Nearly all of what he writes is still in line with modern theory, and he explains it in beautiful, passionate prose. Among other things, he tells you how stars and planets are formed, how star formation is linked to the overall structure of the galaxy, the relationships between the different types of stars, how stars evolve over time, and how they are responsible for creating the heavy elements. Dante, who also loved the stars - famously, the final word in each of the three books of the Divina Commedia is stelle - would have been glued to the page. I immediately saw him putting Hoyle in the Eighth Sphere of the Paradiso, expounding on the lovely details of supernovae as the pilgrims rest for an hour before proceeding on their way to the Empyrean.
I have been thinking on and off all week about what this may tell us concerning modern popular science books. It is hard to escape the conclusion that they are also quite largely wrong. Perhaps, in 2060, people will look at Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe and find it equally hard to believe that we once thought space could have eleven dimensions; as far as I am aware, the empirical evidence in favor of string theory is not stronger than that Hoyle could muster to support Steady State. Obviously, I'm just guessing. But I strongly recommend Hoyle's book to anyone who likes reading popular science. It will give you perspective, and unless you're extremely knowledgeable about astrophysics you'll also learn a few fascinating things you didn't know.
November 19, 2023
The book reads like a summary of Hoyle’s thinking on all things related to “Astronomy” at the time of his writing (1955). A good part of it is related to the earth, planets and our solar system, the origins of the sun and stars, and the creation of the elements. Whether and how much of what he puts forward is outdated or subject to alternative explanations, I can’t say. Toward the end of the book, Hoyle pulls much of this information together to support his steady-state cosmological theory, which has been largely rejected by proponents of the Big Bang.
I focused mainly on his theory of galactic formation, which I found hard to follow. Hoyle works with the then (and current?) standard classification of galaxies (spiral, barred spiral, elliptic, irregular), which struck me as mainly a description of what is seen (the pre-Hubble telescope plates in the book are top-of-the-line photos), but void of Einstein’s theory about the nature of gravitation, i.e. it’s not a force, but a geometric property of space that creates movement toward gravitational centers (condensed mass).
Hoyle says galactic formation has something to do with magnetism, though I didn’t understand that at all. Hoyle writes that “I incline to the view that the galaxies may possess magnetic fields that are not entirely internal in origin - that electric currents flowing in intergalactic space may serve to connect one galaxy to another….It used to be thought, on slender grounds, that the influence is gravitational but I think that a magnetic effect is more likely to prove correct.” In this statement, Hoyle minimizes the role of gravitation without explaining why such might rest on “slender grounds.” Hoyle repeatedly refers to the condensing of gas and matter, which seems to be the heart of all galactic formation, and Einstein’s theory of gravity (matter and energy form gravitational centers) and these, in turn, per Wheeler, bend space and time and govern “straight-line” inertial movement. Magnetism (rotation forms large-scale magnetic pulling between the poles of rotation?) and other cosmic phenomena undoubtedly play a part of the galactic picture, but that seems to me to be secondary to the overall formation of gravitational centers as manifested by galaxies, which, like moons and stars, are essentially round in structure, reflecting the movement of matter and energy toward the gravitational center.
And, might Einstein’s theory also explain what is being seen in the various galactic shapes? Hoyle like others, is silent on whether the galactic spirals are flowing inward toward or outward from the galactic center, though he references both a rotation arrow going outward in one instance and going inward in another. In fairness to Hoyle, he concludes that at the point of his writing everything is speculation (perhaps it still is). But, per Einstein, with galactic formation, are we seeing the general theory of relativity in real time, i.e. gas and matter flowing toward the gravitational center (the bulge), around an elliptic plane (more or less perpendicular to the axis of rotation).
Seen this way, the analogy with a solar system, with orbiting planets and orbiting moons around planets, and Saturn-like disks, is wrong. These are closed systems, reflecting a balance point between straight-line inertial movement on the one hand and the movement toward gravitational centers on the other, whereas with the galactic bulges, the gravitational center is so powerful that it pulls gas and matter toward itself, overcoming all countering inertial movement.
Einstein’s theory also explains the various galactic shapes that could be, theoretically, sequential: undifferentiated galaxies with no bulge first consolidate to form a galactic bulge, pulling in gas and matter around the ecliptic plane. Spirals and barred spirals, followed by elliptical (with no arms) galaxies, which is a progressive condensation of gas and matter (consisting of older stars), with spiral arms moving closer and closer, per the inverse square law, as they move to the center, thus representing the final stage of galactic formation: Bulges, at the center of which is the ultimate gravitational center, black holes?
Regarding Hoyle’s steady-state theory, Hoyle explicitly states a proposition that gets no notice at all these days because the role of inertial motion in Einstein’s theory is minimized (Newton took it off the table, because he was focused only the forces that caused acceleration): “Instead of requiring attraction always to occur between two particles as in the Newtonian theory it can be argued that attraction occurs only if the distance between two particles is not too great, otherwise attraction is replaced by repulsion….If the average density in the Universe is less than a certain critical value…then the Universe will start to expand even if it is not expanding to begin with. If on the other hand the average density in the Universe is just equal to the critical value, the Universe remains static if it is initially static. But this state of balance is unstable - give the Universe a slight expansion and it continues to expand with ever increasing speed, give it a slight contraction and it contracts with ever increasing speed.”
This observation might account for three salient points when it comes to cosmological phenomena. Might this, not dark energy, explain gravity’s “repulsive” force. Matter-energy, thus released from gravitational density, speeds up on its journey around cosmic curvature, a circle that returns to the beginning. On its movement outward, matter-energy progressively speeds up as it moves further from the cosmic gravitational center, before passing the break point, where a “steady-state” occurs (between outward movement from its beginning point before it begins its return to that point). Seen this way, the movement of matter and energy in a cosmic curvature, the “infinite” expansion, steady state, and big crunch all involve (are points along) a circular process. Whether the return to the beginning results in a big bang is an open question, though in this cyclical way of looking at the cosmic history, “the continuous creation of matter” would continue.
The book is a hard read but there are some exciting ideas buried inside it.
I focused mainly on his theory of galactic formation, which I found hard to follow. Hoyle works with the then (and current?) standard classification of galaxies (spiral, barred spiral, elliptic, irregular), which struck me as mainly a description of what is seen (the pre-Hubble telescope plates in the book are top-of-the-line photos), but void of Einstein’s theory about the nature of gravitation, i.e. it’s not a force, but a geometric property of space that creates movement toward gravitational centers (condensed mass).
Hoyle says galactic formation has something to do with magnetism, though I didn’t understand that at all. Hoyle writes that “I incline to the view that the galaxies may possess magnetic fields that are not entirely internal in origin - that electric currents flowing in intergalactic space may serve to connect one galaxy to another….It used to be thought, on slender grounds, that the influence is gravitational but I think that a magnetic effect is more likely to prove correct.” In this statement, Hoyle minimizes the role of gravitation without explaining why such might rest on “slender grounds.” Hoyle repeatedly refers to the condensing of gas and matter, which seems to be the heart of all galactic formation, and Einstein’s theory of gravity (matter and energy form gravitational centers) and these, in turn, per Wheeler, bend space and time and govern “straight-line” inertial movement. Magnetism (rotation forms large-scale magnetic pulling between the poles of rotation?) and other cosmic phenomena undoubtedly play a part of the galactic picture, but that seems to me to be secondary to the overall formation of gravitational centers as manifested by galaxies, which, like moons and stars, are essentially round in structure, reflecting the movement of matter and energy toward the gravitational center.
And, might Einstein’s theory also explain what is being seen in the various galactic shapes? Hoyle like others, is silent on whether the galactic spirals are flowing inward toward or outward from the galactic center, though he references both a rotation arrow going outward in one instance and going inward in another. In fairness to Hoyle, he concludes that at the point of his writing everything is speculation (perhaps it still is). But, per Einstein, with galactic formation, are we seeing the general theory of relativity in real time, i.e. gas and matter flowing toward the gravitational center (the bulge), around an elliptic plane (more or less perpendicular to the axis of rotation).
Seen this way, the analogy with a solar system, with orbiting planets and orbiting moons around planets, and Saturn-like disks, is wrong. These are closed systems, reflecting a balance point between straight-line inertial movement on the one hand and the movement toward gravitational centers on the other, whereas with the galactic bulges, the gravitational center is so powerful that it pulls gas and matter toward itself, overcoming all countering inertial movement.
Einstein’s theory also explains the various galactic shapes that could be, theoretically, sequential: undifferentiated galaxies with no bulge first consolidate to form a galactic bulge, pulling in gas and matter around the ecliptic plane. Spirals and barred spirals, followed by elliptical (with no arms) galaxies, which is a progressive condensation of gas and matter (consisting of older stars), with spiral arms moving closer and closer, per the inverse square law, as they move to the center, thus representing the final stage of galactic formation: Bulges, at the center of which is the ultimate gravitational center, black holes?
Regarding Hoyle’s steady-state theory, Hoyle explicitly states a proposition that gets no notice at all these days because the role of inertial motion in Einstein’s theory is minimized (Newton took it off the table, because he was focused only the forces that caused acceleration): “Instead of requiring attraction always to occur between two particles as in the Newtonian theory it can be argued that attraction occurs only if the distance between two particles is not too great, otherwise attraction is replaced by repulsion….If the average density in the Universe is less than a certain critical value…then the Universe will start to expand even if it is not expanding to begin with. If on the other hand the average density in the Universe is just equal to the critical value, the Universe remains static if it is initially static. But this state of balance is unstable - give the Universe a slight expansion and it continues to expand with ever increasing speed, give it a slight contraction and it contracts with ever increasing speed.”
This observation might account for three salient points when it comes to cosmological phenomena. Might this, not dark energy, explain gravity’s “repulsive” force. Matter-energy, thus released from gravitational density, speeds up on its journey around cosmic curvature, a circle that returns to the beginning. On its movement outward, matter-energy progressively speeds up as it moves further from the cosmic gravitational center, before passing the break point, where a “steady-state” occurs (between outward movement from its beginning point before it begins its return to that point). Seen this way, the movement of matter and energy in a cosmic curvature, the “infinite” expansion, steady state, and big crunch all involve (are points along) a circular process. Whether the return to the beginning results in a big bang is an open question, though in this cyclical way of looking at the cosmic history, “the continuous creation of matter” would continue.
The book is a hard read but there are some exciting ideas buried inside it.
April 21, 2015
Quite technical but interesting beyond all the diagrams and characteristic curves. However I am left wondering how much is relevant to today's theories. Having just finished 'Quantum Theory cannot hurt you' I get the impression that the theories haven't moved on that much further, there is a view that matter that still spontaneously appear in a probabilistic sort of way.
There seems to be so many unknowns holding our current theories together that one feels in a hundred years time when scientists discover some universal law that will rationalise light, gravity, matter, magnetism, electricity and energy into one coherent theory our current understanding will seem like the medieval astronomers grappling with what revolves around what. But I digress. Hoyle writes well if only I could keep up with it all.
There seems to be so many unknowns holding our current theories together that one feels in a hundred years time when scientists discover some universal law that will rationalise light, gravity, matter, magnetism, electricity and energy into one coherent theory our current understanding will seem like the medieval astronomers grappling with what revolves around what. But I digress. Hoyle writes well if only I could keep up with it all.
April 6, 2011
A little bit dated, but still a very inspiring introduction to astronomy/cosmology, by one of the giants of 20th century science.
Read
January 14, 2023Dyunasa
Astronaut little girl
Astronaut little girl
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews