What do you think?
Rate this book
Coincidências Cósmicas: Matéria Negra, Humanidade e Cosmologia Antrópica
What happened "in the beginning", 15 billion years ago? Is the universe only one of its kind or are there others? Is it just a coincidence that life evolved on Earth? This book explores the chain of cosmic events that led to intelligent life on Earth. Scientists cannot explain the distribution of galaxies, and the voids between them, without concluding that at least 90% of the universe consists of so-called "dark matter". The authors here aim to provide a readable account of the leading theories and latest advances in understanding the nature of dark matter, the controlling force in the dynamics structure and the eventual fate of the universe. John Gribbin's previous books include "The Hole in the Sky" and "Hothouse Earth".
- GenresScienceNonfiction
303 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1989
14 people are currently reading
126 people want to read
About the author
John Gribbin
386 books854 followersJohn R. Gribbin is a British science writer, an astrophysicist, and a visiting fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex. His writings include quantum physics, human evolution, climate change, global warming, the origins of the universe, and biographies of famous scientists. He also writes science fiction.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 14, 2018
An interesting look into the forces that created and drive our universe. I had to downgrade the rating simply due to the age of the book which has resulted in some of the thoughts and theories being outdated and proven wrong. However, it remains a viable and accessible source to understanding how we have come to be and the criteria that had to be met to have us be us. I would prefer the basic premise to be that we are tailor made for this universe rather than the universe being created for us. I also wish that there was more insight into the world of the biologic fields because there is an awful lot of life existing in conditions and subsisting on minerals beyond what scientists once believed which starts to alter the criteria for the creation of life and the potential for intelligent life.
March 26, 2024
A CLEAR PRESENTATION OF THESE COSMOLOGICAL CONCEPTS
John R. Gribbin (born 1946) is a British science writer, astrophysicist, and a visiting fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex. Martin John Rees (born 1942) is a British cosmologist and astrophysicist who was Master of Trinity College, Cambridge from 2004 to 2012 and President of the Royal Society between 2005 and 2010.
They wrote in the Introduction to this 1989 book, “In this book, we have … described those recent developments that we have found … that seem to fascinate nonspecialists most. We aim to answer the questions that we most often are asked. Few of these topics---quasar spectra, protogalaxies, gravitational lenses, gravitational waves, and cosmic strings---have yet been given due prominence in nontechnical publications…” (Pg. xii)
They state, “It is something of a theoretical puzzle why monopoles HAVEN’T been detected, if they can be created in the Big Bang. The best resolution of this puzzle is provided by the various forms of the theory of inflation, which says that at a very early time a tiny piece of spacetime expanded dramatically to form the Universe as we know it.” (Pg. 120)
They explain, “The way galaxies are distributed across the sky resembles the way cosmic strings, if they exist, MUST be distributed. But we can imagine other ways to make the pattern of galaxies. It doesn’t PROVE strings exist, but it does encourage theorists to speculate further along these lines. Long strings should be moving through the Universe like cracking whips as wiggles move along infinite strings. These moving strings would leave ‘wakes’ behind them, regions in which density had been increased, and in which galaxies form in sheets separated by large amounts of seemingly empty space. There are many different ways in which cosmic strings COULD explain the existence of galaxies in the Universe.” (Pg. 195)
They argue, “Most anthropic arguments are made with the benefit of hindsight. We look at the Universe, notice that it is close to flat, and say, ‘Oh yes, of course, it must be that way, or we wouldn’t be here to notice it.’ But [Fred] Hoyle’s prediction is different, in a class of its own. It is a genuine scientific prediction, tested, and confirmed by SUBSEQUENT experiments. Hoyle said, in effect, ‘since we exist, then carbon must have an energy level at 7.6 MeV.’ THEN the experiments were carried out and the energy level was measured. As far as we know, this is the only genuinely anthropic principle prediction; all the rest are ‘predictions’ that MIGHT have been made in advance of the observations, if anyone had had the genius to make them, but that were never in fact made in that way.” (Pg. 246-247)
They note, “evolution by natural selection does not proceed by sticking together all the components of a living creature at random, but by building step by step on previous successes. That debate is outside the scope of our present book, but Richard Dawkins had laid the myth to rest in his superb ‘The Blind Watchmaker,’ which we recommend to anyone still seduced (or confused) by the ‘argument from design.’ What IS relevant to our main theme is that [William] Paley was also intrigued by the inverse square law of gravity described by Newton in the 1680s… Paley saw this ‘choice’ of the inverse square law of gravity as another example of God’s work in designing a Universe suitable for human life. He did not elaborate , however, on the fact that that inverse square law is a byproduct of the fact that the Universe has three spatial dimensions---although this had been noticed by Immanuel Kant earlier in the eighteenth century.” (Pg. 260-261)
They continue, “Any universe in which our kind of intelligent life can arise must look rather like our Universe, since without the familiar coincidences and constants that life would not be there. We believe our Universe to be special because we inhabit it. But that does not mean that it is special in any deeper sense of the word. A useful analogy is with a lottery… Maybe the world is like that. There may be a multitude of universes that all start out sterile. Intelligence appears in some (or perhaps only one) of those universes as a result of the accumulation of random coincidences, and that universe stands out from the rest as special only with hindsight, once intelligence has appeared to wonder over its own origins.” (Pg. 273)
They acknowledge, “The case for the defense … is … John Barrow and Frank Tipler[’s]… book ‘The Anthropic Cosmological Principle’… we agree that the principle does deserve serious attention. Its eventual status will depend on what the laws of nature are really like. If some final unified theory yields UNIQUE numbers for all the constants, then it may be inconceivable to envisage a different kind of universe. But if the basic laws turn out to involve some random or statistical element, then the idea of an ensemble of universes, outlined in this chapter, could be put on a serious footing. It could then be natural selection, not mere accident, that our Universe … has the particular values of the physical constants that we measure.” (Pg. 286)
This book will interest people studying such cosmological ideas.
John R. Gribbin (born 1946) is a British science writer, astrophysicist, and a visiting fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex. Martin John Rees (born 1942) is a British cosmologist and astrophysicist who was Master of Trinity College, Cambridge from 2004 to 2012 and President of the Royal Society between 2005 and 2010.
They wrote in the Introduction to this 1989 book, “In this book, we have … described those recent developments that we have found … that seem to fascinate nonspecialists most. We aim to answer the questions that we most often are asked. Few of these topics---quasar spectra, protogalaxies, gravitational lenses, gravitational waves, and cosmic strings---have yet been given due prominence in nontechnical publications…” (Pg. xii)
They state, “It is something of a theoretical puzzle why monopoles HAVEN’T been detected, if they can be created in the Big Bang. The best resolution of this puzzle is provided by the various forms of the theory of inflation, which says that at a very early time a tiny piece of spacetime expanded dramatically to form the Universe as we know it.” (Pg. 120)
They explain, “The way galaxies are distributed across the sky resembles the way cosmic strings, if they exist, MUST be distributed. But we can imagine other ways to make the pattern of galaxies. It doesn’t PROVE strings exist, but it does encourage theorists to speculate further along these lines. Long strings should be moving through the Universe like cracking whips as wiggles move along infinite strings. These moving strings would leave ‘wakes’ behind them, regions in which density had been increased, and in which galaxies form in sheets separated by large amounts of seemingly empty space. There are many different ways in which cosmic strings COULD explain the existence of galaxies in the Universe.” (Pg. 195)
They argue, “Most anthropic arguments are made with the benefit of hindsight. We look at the Universe, notice that it is close to flat, and say, ‘Oh yes, of course, it must be that way, or we wouldn’t be here to notice it.’ But [Fred] Hoyle’s prediction is different, in a class of its own. It is a genuine scientific prediction, tested, and confirmed by SUBSEQUENT experiments. Hoyle said, in effect, ‘since we exist, then carbon must have an energy level at 7.6 MeV.’ THEN the experiments were carried out and the energy level was measured. As far as we know, this is the only genuinely anthropic principle prediction; all the rest are ‘predictions’ that MIGHT have been made in advance of the observations, if anyone had had the genius to make them, but that were never in fact made in that way.” (Pg. 246-247)
They note, “evolution by natural selection does not proceed by sticking together all the components of a living creature at random, but by building step by step on previous successes. That debate is outside the scope of our present book, but Richard Dawkins had laid the myth to rest in his superb ‘The Blind Watchmaker,’ which we recommend to anyone still seduced (or confused) by the ‘argument from design.’ What IS relevant to our main theme is that [William] Paley was also intrigued by the inverse square law of gravity described by Newton in the 1680s… Paley saw this ‘choice’ of the inverse square law of gravity as another example of God’s work in designing a Universe suitable for human life. He did not elaborate , however, on the fact that that inverse square law is a byproduct of the fact that the Universe has three spatial dimensions---although this had been noticed by Immanuel Kant earlier in the eighteenth century.” (Pg. 260-261)
They continue, “Any universe in which our kind of intelligent life can arise must look rather like our Universe, since without the familiar coincidences and constants that life would not be there. We believe our Universe to be special because we inhabit it. But that does not mean that it is special in any deeper sense of the word. A useful analogy is with a lottery… Maybe the world is like that. There may be a multitude of universes that all start out sterile. Intelligence appears in some (or perhaps only one) of those universes as a result of the accumulation of random coincidences, and that universe stands out from the rest as special only with hindsight, once intelligence has appeared to wonder over its own origins.” (Pg. 273)
They acknowledge, “The case for the defense … is … John Barrow and Frank Tipler[’s]… book ‘The Anthropic Cosmological Principle’… we agree that the principle does deserve serious attention. Its eventual status will depend on what the laws of nature are really like. If some final unified theory yields UNIQUE numbers for all the constants, then it may be inconceivable to envisage a different kind of universe. But if the basic laws turn out to involve some random or statistical element, then the idea of an ensemble of universes, outlined in this chapter, could be put on a serious footing. It could then be natural selection, not mere accident, that our Universe … has the particular values of the physical constants that we measure.” (Pg. 286)
This book will interest people studying such cosmological ideas.
September 16, 2015
Re-Reading this after about 15 years.
August 25, 2023
Quantum mechanics are about as philosophical as regular mechanics, at least according to authors John Gribbin and Martin Rees. Hell, your average car mechanic is probably more philosophical, or at least more apt to give you his solution to the world’s problems after a couple of beers.
Still, contemplating the stuff of the universe can’t help but arouse the curiosity of all-but-the-most-closed literal minds. Why do the sciences (and math) allow us to apprehend what appear to be fundamental laws of the universe? Why—in such a harsh and mostly barren universe—were conditions exactly right for us to thrive?
Is there a genuine harmony in the spheres, truth to Joni Mitchell’s lyrics about us being stardust? Do cucumbers in fact taste better pickled?
Some of these questions are answered in this book, but most of the answering only goes on in the last two chapters. Before that we get more of a forensic analysis of what can be read in the cosmic shrapnel left behind by the Big Bang. Observing the universe, how space, time, and spacetime are deposited and scattered, helps lend us clues about the shape of the universe, and thus our place in it. The study of what one cosmogonic physicist called “The First Three Minutes” helps us get a chance to apprehend the types of matter and nonbaryonic particles which almost certainly existed long ago and may still exist. It’s important to find and understand those things (for lack of a better word) that contradict known physical laws, as it’s only after incorporating those things (for lack of a better word) that physics and our own understanding of the world and ourselves can be improved.
The smartest people (not me) understand that there is still much work to be done in unriddling the physical nature of the universe. The most philosophical of that number understand that answering such questions will not answer the ultimate question: why? And then, because our tools for apprehending the nature of the universe—our eyes and even math—involve mediating systems means that we may never really know anything. Yes, physicists aren’t comfortable with philosophy (always) but the platonic ideal and Kant’s Ding an Sich do need to be factored in; for if we indeed never see a real chair (only approximations of the perfect chair) then we definitely have no hope of totally believing measurements made via methods like gravitational lensing or interferometry, no matter how accurate our tools. In the end, a tool is still a crutch, not something that pulls aside the veil.
Still, it is a fun puzzle, complicated, frustrating—at times maddeningly so—but for all that rewarding. This book is pitched as being accessible to the layman, and it is, provided you don’t insist on checking the work of the scientists who actually did the initial calculations. After a certain point, unless you have a PhD, social proof has to enter the equation.
But if you can figure out what 10-44 is rounded off to the fiftieth place, then maybe you don’t have to take the word of someone like Stephen Hawking.
There are ample diagrams and charts and illustrations, but when you consider that String Theory posits ten dimensions, I’m not sure drawings help make the point. The idea of the universe being shaped like a pair of pants (not a joke) is actually posited at one point, in order to make it all easier to understand, or at least visualize.
The last bit of the last chapter tries to cram a little bit too much info about the conflict between Niels Bohr’s “Copenhagen School” theory of wave collapse contrasted against Hugh Everett the Third’s theory of wave propagation via multiple universes. There’s even some Schrödinger in there, but a good five minute YouTube tutorial could probably help you as much or more than what’s written here.
And of course those who remain at the cutting edge of what particle accelerators and telescopes can achieve will tell you that much of what’s in here is out-of-date. Still, even the layman knows that old theories supposedly lain on the ash heap of history can sometimes rise, Phoenixlike, to reprove their initial worth.
For that reason alone, even the boys and gals (and everything in between) who subscribe to the scholarly, peer-reviewed journals might want to revisit this one. Or at least read the last two chapters.
Still, contemplating the stuff of the universe can’t help but arouse the curiosity of all-but-the-most-closed literal minds. Why do the sciences (and math) allow us to apprehend what appear to be fundamental laws of the universe? Why—in such a harsh and mostly barren universe—were conditions exactly right for us to thrive?
Is there a genuine harmony in the spheres, truth to Joni Mitchell’s lyrics about us being stardust? Do cucumbers in fact taste better pickled?
Some of these questions are answered in this book, but most of the answering only goes on in the last two chapters. Before that we get more of a forensic analysis of what can be read in the cosmic shrapnel left behind by the Big Bang. Observing the universe, how space, time, and spacetime are deposited and scattered, helps lend us clues about the shape of the universe, and thus our place in it. The study of what one cosmogonic physicist called “The First Three Minutes” helps us get a chance to apprehend the types of matter and nonbaryonic particles which almost certainly existed long ago and may still exist. It’s important to find and understand those things (for lack of a better word) that contradict known physical laws, as it’s only after incorporating those things (for lack of a better word) that physics and our own understanding of the world and ourselves can be improved.
The smartest people (not me) understand that there is still much work to be done in unriddling the physical nature of the universe. The most philosophical of that number understand that answering such questions will not answer the ultimate question: why? And then, because our tools for apprehending the nature of the universe—our eyes and even math—involve mediating systems means that we may never really know anything. Yes, physicists aren’t comfortable with philosophy (always) but the platonic ideal and Kant’s Ding an Sich do need to be factored in; for if we indeed never see a real chair (only approximations of the perfect chair) then we definitely have no hope of totally believing measurements made via methods like gravitational lensing or interferometry, no matter how accurate our tools. In the end, a tool is still a crutch, not something that pulls aside the veil.
Still, it is a fun puzzle, complicated, frustrating—at times maddeningly so—but for all that rewarding. This book is pitched as being accessible to the layman, and it is, provided you don’t insist on checking the work of the scientists who actually did the initial calculations. After a certain point, unless you have a PhD, social proof has to enter the equation.
But if you can figure out what 10-44 is rounded off to the fiftieth place, then maybe you don’t have to take the word of someone like Stephen Hawking.
There are ample diagrams and charts and illustrations, but when you consider that String Theory posits ten dimensions, I’m not sure drawings help make the point. The idea of the universe being shaped like a pair of pants (not a joke) is actually posited at one point, in order to make it all easier to understand, or at least visualize.
The last bit of the last chapter tries to cram a little bit too much info about the conflict between Niels Bohr’s “Copenhagen School” theory of wave collapse contrasted against Hugh Everett the Third’s theory of wave propagation via multiple universes. There’s even some Schrödinger in there, but a good five minute YouTube tutorial could probably help you as much or more than what’s written here.
And of course those who remain at the cutting edge of what particle accelerators and telescopes can achieve will tell you that much of what’s in here is out-of-date. Still, even the layman knows that old theories supposedly lain on the ash heap of history can sometimes rise, Phoenixlike, to reprove their initial worth.
For that reason alone, even the boys and gals (and everything in between) who subscribe to the scholarly, peer-reviewed journals might want to revisit this one. Or at least read the last two chapters.
April 8, 2016
In chapter ten, John Gribbin & Martin Rees solved the diurnal anomaly of Ursa Minor Beta whereupon, "[...] it's always Saturday afternoon, just right before the beach bars close," or twilight: "[...] a universe in which the gravitational fine structure constant is 10^-30 rather than 10^-40 [...] each `day' on our miniworld is just under one of our seconds long."
August 25, 2016
Este ha sido el único libro de divulgación de astronomía que me he terminado. La traducción era tan mala que dark matter se transformaba en materia oculta :/
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews