Big Bang

by Simon Singh

Ζούμε σε ένα σύμπαν που έχει περισσότερους από 100 δισεκατομμύρια γαλαξίες, και καθένας απ' αυτούς έχει περισσότερους από 100 δισεκατομμύρια αστέρες. Δεν γνωρίζουμε ακριβώς πόσοι από αυτούς τους αστέρες έχουν πλανήτες να περιφέρονται σε τροχιά γύρω τους, αλλά είναι βέβαιο ότι τουλάχιστον σε έναν συγκεκριμένο πλανήτη έχει αναπτυχθεί ζωή. Και μάλιστα, αυτή η μορφή ζωής έχει την ικανότητα και το θράσος να εκφράζει θεωρίες σχετικά με την προέλευση του αχανούς μας σύμπαντος. Χιλιάδες ανθρώπινες γενιές ατένιζαν το διάστημα, όμως εμείς έχουμε το προνόμιο να ανήκουμε στην πρώτη γενιά που ισχυρίζεται ότι διαθέτει μια αξιοσέβαστη, λογική και περιεκτική περιγραφή για τη δημιουργία και την εξέλιξη του σύμπαντος.
Το μοντέλο της Μεγάλης Έκρηξης προσφέρει μια κομψή εξήγηση για την προέλευση όσων βλέπουμε στο νυχτερινό ουρανό. Προϊόν ακόρεστης περιέργειας, απίστευτης φαντασίας, έντονης παρατήρησης και αδιαπραγμάτευτης λογικής, πρόκειται για ένα από τα μεγαλύτερα επιτεύγματα του ανθρώπινου πνεύματος.
Ακόμη πιο αξιοθαύμαστο είναι ότι το μοντέλο της Μεγάλης Έκρηξης μπορεί να γίνει κατανοητό από όλους. Ήμουν έφηβος ακόμη όταν πρωτοδιδάχθηκα τη Μεγάλη Έκρηξη, και θυμάμαι πόσο με εντυπωσίασε η απλότητα και η ομορφιά της, όπως επίσης και το γεγονός ότι βασιζόταν σε αρχές που, σε μεγάλο βαθμό, δεν ξεπερνούσαν τη φυσική που μάθαινα στο σχολείο.
Ακριβώς όπως η θεωρία του Κάρολου Δαρβίνου για τη φυσική επιλογή είναι θεμελιώδης και κατανοητή στους πιο ανοιχτόμυαλους ανθρώπους, έτσι και το μοντέλο της Μεγάλης Έκρηξης μπορεί να εξηγηθεί με όρους που καταλαβαίνουν και οι μη ειδικοί, χωρίς να "βάζουμε νερό στο κρασί μας" στις κεντρικές έννοιες της θεωρίας...
Οι σύγχρονοι επιστήμονες πρέπει να βγουν και να διαλαλήσουν στον κόσμο ότι το μοντέλο της Μεγάλης Έκρηξης αποτίει φόρο τιμής στην ανθρώπινη περιέργεια και διάνοια. Και αν κάποιος από το ακροατήριο θέσει το δυσκολότερο ερώτημα όλων, "Τι υπήρχε πριν από τη Μεγάλη Έκρηξη;", τότε οι κοσμολόγοι θα πρέπει να μιμηθούν το παράδειγμα του Αγίου Αυγουστίνου: Στην αυτοβιογραφία του, Εξομολογήσεις, γραμμένη περίπου το 400 μ.Χ., ο φιλόσοφος και θεολόγος Άγιος Αυγουστίνος αναφέρει μιαν απάντηση που είχε ακούσει όταν τέθηκε το θεολογικό ισοδύναμο του ερωτήματος:
"Τι υπήρχε πριν από τη Μεγάλη Έκρηξη;"
- Τι έκανε ο Θεός πριν δημιουργήσει το σύμπαν;
- Πριν δημιουργήσει τον Ουρανό και τη Γη, ο Θεός έφτιαξε την κόλαση για να στέλνει εκείνους που θέτουν τέτοιου είδους ερωτήματα.
Ο όρος BIG BANG αποδείχθηκε ένας μικρός και εντυπωσιακός τίτλος για τη θεωρία της δημιουργίας, και μάλιστα επινοήθηκε από τον μεγαλύτερο επικριτή της! Το βιβλίο αφηγείται την επική ιστορία της πιο σημαντικής επιστημονικής θεωρίας όλων των εποχών. Διαθέτει όλα τα συστατικά μιας επιστημονικής περιπέτειας, όμως, έχει και κάτι παραπάνω: αληθινή γνώση, επιστημονική εγκυρότητα, σαφήνεια, ανατροπές και... χιούμορ.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Physics, Astronomy, History, Popular Science, Space

638 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Simon Lehna Singh, MBE is a British author who has specialised in writing about mathematical and scientific topics in an accessible manner. He is the maiden winner of the Lilavati Award.

His written works include Fermat's Last Theorem (in the United States titled Fermat's Enigma: The Epic Quest to Solve the World's Greatest Mathematical Problem), The Code Book (about cryptography and its history), Big Bang (about the Big Bang theory and the origins of the universe) and Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (about complementary and alternative medicine).

He has also produced documentaries and works for television to accompany his books, is a trustee of NESTA, the National Museum of Science and Industry and co-founded the Undergraduate Ambassadors Scheme.

Reviews

[Manny · Rating 3 out of 5]

An unbeatable offer: two reviews for the price of one! If you aren't interested in dull hairsplitting, scroll directly to the Infotainment Review below. But first, I'm afraid I must tediously present my

Scholarly review (fact-checked)

I'm conflicted about this book. There's plenty to love. As far as I can tell, Singh gets all the science right, and the fact that it's stuffed with entertaining stories about the historical characters involved makes it a fun read. I finished it in a couple of days. But how accurate are these stories? I am by no means an expert on the history of the Big Bang, but I have recently become interested in it and I've read several books. Last week, I read Kragh's Cosmology and Controversy . Given that Singh praises it as "probably the single best book on the Big Bang" and thanks Kragh for his help in writing his own book, I am puzzled to see a number of obvious inconsistencies.

Kragh comes across as an extremely careful scholar and Singh as an entertainer, so it's hard to believe that Singh is the one getting it right. For example, Kragh briefly mentions the tradition according to which the Steady State theory was born after its originators watched the 1945 movie Dead of Night, but warns that this is almost certainly a legend; Singh just presents it as fact, and spends a page describing the movie in great detail. Similarly, Kragh says that most people assume Gamow coined the word "ylem" to refer to the primordial matter from which the Universe was created, but that the word was first used by Gamow's collaborator Alpher; Singh says it was Gamow's invention.

The above are trivial matters, but then I don't know a great deal about Gamow or the Steady State group. One part of the story I do know fairly well, however, is the role played by Georges Lemaître, where I've read Lambert's two biographies, Un atome d'univers and L'itinéraire spirituel de Georges Lemaître . Lambert spent years of his life researching Lemaître and seems to have talked to just about every person still alive who knew him, so I'm inclined to trust his account. I've also Luminet's L'invention du Big Bang , which generally agrees with Lambert and Kragh and is also based on primary sources.

Well: with regard to Lemaître, widely claimed to be one of the three most important people in the Big Bang story, there are serious divergences between Singh's version and the ones I've seen in Lambert, Kragh and Luminet. Singh confuses Lemaître's 1927 paper, where he first suggested the idea of an expanding universe and his 1931 paper, where he named the hypothesis of the "primeval atom", and makes them sound like the same paper. They are in fact completely different, and were not even originally written in the same language. Singh doesn't mention that Lemaître's first paper presents experimental evidence in support of the expanding universe hypothesis, and calls it a purely theoretical paper. He says, correctly, that the original version of the paper was in French, but doesn't mention that the English translation had a crucial passage removed so as not to present the experimental evidence, which meanwhile had been independently presented by Hubble. (As Kragh points out, "Hubble's Law" should arguably have been called "Lemaître's Law"). Singh says that Lemaître wasn't very interested in the Cosmological Constant, whereas it was in fact crucial to all his work on cosmology and figures largely in the 1927 paper. Finally, Singh quotes Eddington as saying that he found the idea of the universe having a beginning in time as "repugnant", but makes it sound like this was a reaction to Lemaître's paper. Kragh and Lambert say it was the other way round: Lemaître wrote his 1931 paper as a reaction to Eddington's remark.

Okay... if you want infotainment, Singh is your man. He's a lot of fun, and you'll almost certainly learn something at the same time. But if you want serious history of science, go straight to Kragh. He's also fun, and it's just an all-round better piece of work.
________________________________

Infotainment review (not fact-checked)

Simon Singh was born in Wellington, Somerset, where his mother, reputedly a former go-go dancer, was also keenly interested in popular science. At her son's bedtime, she used sing him poems from George Gamow's Mr. Tomkins in Wonderland to tunes of her own invention. According to family legend, Simon's first word was "neutron"! Perhaps as a result of Mrs. Singh's unorthodox choice of lullabies, he soon showed great promise in science himself.

At Imperial College, he eked out his meagre student grant by writing a science column in a local paper. Singh has always denied it, but it has been claimed that he also contributed to the royal gossip column when the regular journalist, a notorious alcoholic, was too inebriated to meet his deadline. Singh's pieces became more and more far-fetched, until one day the editor, shocked at the latest installment, asked him to justify it. Singh looked at him completely straight-faced. "Everyone says Paul Burrell's former hairdresser has an excellent parole officer," he replied. "Are you calling the woman a liar?" The editor laughed and ran the piece anyway.

It was no surprise to his friends when Singh chose to combine his talents by going into science journalism, where he rapidly made a name for himself. Big Bang is a typical example of his approach, and it is natural to compare it with Cosmology and Controversy, Helge Kragh's magisterial work on the same subject. First, the figure on the opposite page contrasts the two authors' relative popularity on Goodreads. We imagine two stacks of books, with one book for each person who has read the work in question. Kragh's stack contains only two books, but Singh's has 1,911, making a pile higher than St. Paul's Cathedral (111 m)!

But what about quality? Here, another analogy might be helpful. Suppose that we divide the floor area of the Albert Hall (4226 sq m) into two exactly equal halves. On the left side, we drop one empty crisp packet for every factual error in Kragh's book, and on the right side we drop one crisp packet for every mistake in Singh's. Now imagine that two janitors are given the task of collecting all the rubbish. They start simultaneously, at exactly 12 noon [continued page 94]

[Muhammad · Rating 5 out of 5]

‘Curiosity’ is a curious thing! It’s the only quality that differentiates humans from all the other living organisms (well, at least on the surface of Earth!). Solely driven by this ‘exclusive feature’, Man has discovered the intricate design of nature and invented his way to mimic it. If one speculates enough, he will find that all our technologies are simply based on the happenings going on around us in the nature. If you are a romantic one and like to see the nature’s creation as a Grand Opera, then perhaps, it won’t be too wrong to say that our technologies represent our rendition of this opera. The key to this derivation process is just raising a simple question, “How did this happen?” and raising questions is science. Science is a direct descendent of philosophy. While philosophy asks “Why?”, science asks “How?”. There are too many "How?" questions. The idea is if we can gather enough answers to these questions, they will eventually lead us to the “Why”. Finding an answer to one “How?” reveals that there are lots of other “Hows” lurking in the darkness. It’s like solving a ginormous cryptic puzzle. The clues are right before our eyes but they are way too scattered. You pick one wrong clue, you are horribly led astray and this is a very frequent case. Throughout the course of civilization, humans often forgot to raise questions, picked up the wrong clues and acted upon doctrinal views. These were (and still are) the obstacles in the way of finding the answers of “How”. The point today science is standing at, is achieved by walking through such an uneven path and the history is often bloody as well. Starting from the Greek philosophers’ era to the modern times, people have been wondering about the origin of everything and the idea of a "Big Bang" seems to give us the answers, finally. Today Big Bang has become a very common concept and almost everyone you find on the streets can spend a few words on it. Like many other science theories, Big Bang also had to fight a tough battle to survive. It might sound a little exaggerated, but Big Bang theory is said to be human kind’s greatest achievement (accumulating all the philosophical and scientific disciplines). So, one naturally can ask now how this great idea, that explains the creation’s origin, was conceived?

British science writer Simon Singh produces a weighty tome on the history of Big Bang that tells the enthralling tales of the origin of the universe. There is science and there is history, a lot of history. Singh proves himself to be a great story teller who makes the highly complicated ideas very much accessible, literally to anyone. This book proves again that one doesn't have to be a science major to learn the science. You will have a good idea how scientists are calculating the enormous distances from our planet to the stars just by reading few paragraphs. No mathematical manipulation, no tedious calculation, nothing! You will be badly hooked on this book once you start it, I can almost bet on it! The way the book is organized also allows you to keep things in mind without much stress. The tales of the mavericks, the mad scientists, based on whose contributions the Big Bang model is established, are very inspiring and fascinating. Famous astronomer Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” inspired many to become real life astronomers. I think it won’t be surprising if Singh’s “Big Bang: The Origin of The Universe” plays a similar role. For aspiring astronomers, physicists, even science writers, this book will be a great head start.

The Universe is quite old. The Big Bang model gives us an average age of 13.8 billion years, as of today. Once people asked how we were created and many centuries later we found that Big Bang is probably the answer. Now another question has already been raised. “What happened before Big Bang?” Well, this certainly will give birth to a very hot philosophical (and religious too) debate and I do not possess enough knowledge and audacity (probably the scientists do not either!) to continue this discussion. Instead, I will simply quote St. Augustine (b. 354 AD) as Singh himself did in the epilogue of the book. I am putting it here for the sheer fun of it and nothing serious!

“What was God doing before He created the Universe? Before He created Heaven and Earth, God created hell to be used for people such as you who ask this kind of question”!

[Mircea Petcu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Einstein a fost primul cosmolog. Când Einstein a aplicat relativitatea generală și formula gravitației asupra universului la scară mare, a fost ușor surprins și dezamăgit de predicțiile teoriei. A aflat că universul este instabil. Formula gravitației a arătat că toate corpurile din univers sunt atrase de toate celelalte corpuri la scară cosmică. Aceasta ar face ca fiecare obiect să se apropie din ce în ce mai mult de fiecare alt obiect - universul părea destinat să facă implozie.
Einstein prefera un univers etern și static. Așa că a recurs la un truc matematic. A văzut că formula lui pentru gravitație putea fi modificată așa încât să includă un termen nou, pe care l-a botezat constanta cosmologică. Aceasta umplea spațiul gol cu o presiune intrinsecă ce avea tendința de a împinge universul mai departe - era un fel de antigravitație.

Folosind cel mai mare observator din lume, astronomul Edwin Hubble a descoperit că galaxiile se îndepărtau de Pâmant cu o viteză ce depindea de distanța la care se află aceasta. Galaxiile nu zburau la întâmplare prin cosmos, iar când savanții întâlnesc asemenea relații, ei caută explicații mai profunde. În acest caz, era vorba de înțelegerea faptului că într-un moment din trecut toate galaxiile din univers fuseseră înghesuite într-o aceeași regiune mică. Acesta a fost primul indiciu observațional legat de ceea ce numim astăzi Big Bang.
Einstein s-a înșelat - universul a avut un început, nu era static și etern. Constanta cosmologică nu mai era necesară pentru a preveni colapsarea universului. Însuși Einstein a numit constanta cosmologică "cea mai mare gafă" a sa.

În 1998, analizând datele despre supernove, astronomii au fost surprinși să observe că expansiunea universului accelerează. Gravitația stelelor și a galaxiilor din univers ar fi trebuit să încetinească rata de expansiune a universului. De atunci cercetătorii speculează că universul este plin de o substanță misterioașă pe care o numesc "energie întunecată" care acționează ca o antigravitație, ca o... constantă cosmologică. N-am scăpat de constanta cosmologică.

Recomand

[Roger · Rating 5 out of 5]

This brilliant book by Simon Singh, first published in 2004, seeks to explain the theories that have existed since ancient times until the modern day concerning the structure, age and creation of the universe. Singh has an easygoing style of writing and having said what he wants to say he will often summarise the remarks he has made, thus making sure he has been fully understood and that the reader is keeping up to speed. Also, rather than just discuss the cold scientific facts, he brings the subject to life by describing the personalities involved, and the challenges they faced in their attempts to solve the mysteries of the cosmos. Each chapter also ends with a helpful two page "handwritten" summary covering the salient points.

He starts the book by addressing the place of the earth in the big scheme of things, going through the various early theories where the earth was at the centre of everything. Interestingly, in the third century BC the ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus had worked out that it was the earth that moved around the sun and not the other way around, but he lost out to the views of heavyweights Aristotle and Ptolemy who had both favoured a geocentric model. In fact, logic and common sense seemed to rule out the idea of the earth orbiting the sun, for reasons such as if the earth was travelling through space at great speed we would feel a tremendous wind and would be knocked off our feet as the ground moved under us. Not to mention that placing the earth at the centre of the universe was a useful way of explaining gravity in that everything was attracted to this centre point. The geocentric view prevailed for many centuries, this position also suiting the early church who stood steadfast against anyone proposing something different. But, eventually, through the determined efforts of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Galileo in the 16th century, science won through and the church was forced to accept the heliocentric layout of the solar system.

Singh discusses the speed of light and the postulated existence, or otherwise, of the ether. I was surprised to read that it was as early as 1670 when the Danish astronomer, Ole Rømer, first recognised that light had a finite speed and he made a not unreasonable estimate of this speed based on calculations of apparent anomalies in the orbit of one of the moons of Jupiter. Of course, of critical importance in understanding light was Einstein's contribution, which led to the development of his special theory of relativity. Singh's account naturally progresses to Einstein's general theory of relativity and to his view that the universe was static, although he did need to add a cosmological constant to his general relativity theory to support this conjecture. But shortly afterwards saw the (then) unpopular, and independently developed, theories of Friedman and Lemaître which proposed an expanding universe, with Lemaître being the first to recognise that if the universe was expanding then it must once have been smaller, and once probably minute - hence he was the first to hint at a big bang theory although he called it the primaeval atom. Lemaître also had the distinction of being both a physicist and an ordained priest, so he can be thought of as having hedged his bet when it came to theories of creation.

Next, Singh discusses the discovery in the early 20th century that many of the so-called nebulae that were visible through telescopes were actually far away galaxies, and not, as some thought, merely objects within our own Milky Way galaxy. Further research, notably by Hubble, showed that most of these galaxies were moving away from earth, and the further they were away, the faster they were moving. Experimental evidence had thus been found for the expansion of the universe and therefore, as a corollary, an initiation in a big bang, thus opening the way to a proper Big Bang theory.

But, moving on, Singh notes that this incipient Big Bang theory had problems. For example, it couldn't account for how the heavy chemical elements had formed. George Gamow had led efforts that succeeded in explaining how the heat of the big bang would have led to the fusion of proton and neutrons, leading to the formation of helium in the proportion that it is present in the universe today. But he couldn't explain the formation of the heavier elements. Another issue was the age of the universe, because using the estimated speeds and distances of far away galaxies, it seemed that the universe was younger than the age of the earth, as calculated from radioactivity measurements. In the 1940s, Fred Hoyle, along with others, proposed an alternative to the Big Bang theory by suggesting a Steady State model in which the universe was expanding but where new matter was continually being created in the gaps between the old galaxies. The discrepancies in the age of the earth and the universe were less of a problem for this theory but it still had its own difficulties. It couldn't, for instance, account for the formation of any of the elements, not even helium. Throughout his life, Hoyle remained very critical of the Big Bang Theory and ironically it was he who coined the term "Big Bang", although it was intended to be derogatory.

The battle between the Big Bang and Steady State theories continued but slowly the ground moved in favour of the former. Successive discoveries uncovered errors in estimates of the size of the universe, and hence its age, and it was shown that the universe was indeed older than the earth, which was a welcome boost for the Big Bangers. Then, by calculating the pressures and temperatures expected to be found in stars during their life cycles, Hoyle was successful in theorising how the heavier elements could have formed from helium. Although Hoyle was a Steady Stater, his research had helped both camps. Then radio astronomy was successful in finding younger galaxies at the far reaches of the universe - their absence in the closer parts of the universe contradicted the predictions of the Steady State model, adding further weight to the Big Bang theory. The final nail in the coffin for the Steady State argument was the accidental discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation by Penzias and Wilson. Big Bang theorists had predicted the presence of this radiation, which dates back to about 300,000 years after the initiation of the universe, and they had been proved right. In the 1990s, equipment on the COBE satellite detected minor variations in the background radiation, which are thought to reflect minor variations in the density of the early universe, which in turn provided the seeds for the growth of the galaxies.

Curiously, it's only at the end of the book, in an epilogue, that Singh talks about more contentious issues, including inflation, dark matter and dark energy. I was a little puzzled as to why this wasn't incorporated into main text but this is only a minor issue and it doesn't detract from the general flow.

Much of the scientific information in the book I knew already but it was still refreshing and entertaining to see it presented in its historical context, and to read of the struggles by those involved in formulating and then attempting to prove the various theories. For a simple, non-mathematical introduction to cosmology, I think this book is difficult to beat.

[Giuseppe Sirugo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Simon Singh es un escritor científico y periodista. Durante varios años trabajó en la BBC como productor de televisión para la realización de documentales.

El Big Bang: El origen del universo y los hombres que desentrañaron su misterio es un libro de Simon Singh, publicado en noviembre de 2004 por Rizzoli.
En el campo de la literatura, está lleno de escritores o poetas que, para escribir un libro, consideran dos o más cuentos y, de forma paralela, derivan su relato de la síntesis de estos. Y lo mismo hizo Simon Singh con su libro: el periodista, basándose en el concepto de que hay algo único sobre la teoría del Big Bang, investigó con la más rigurosa cientificidad lo que habría sido la creación del mundo. En este libro se dedicó a la búsqueda de los hombres que revelaron el misterioso origen del universo y generalizó de manera emblemática con dos relatos equidistantes: “Estas historias, tomadas en consideración por Simon Singh, aunque están en armonía entre sí, se entrelazan con considerable importancia. Y si por una parte aclaran convicciones ya adquiridas, por otra, dejan abiertos los problemas del pasado.”

La primera narración, que abarca mil millones de años, fue la que nació de una explosión. Considerando cualquier disertación sobre el origen del universo y aquellos que escribieron la historia a partir de un primer esquema cosmológico del siglo pasado, se inspiró en la teoría de la relatividad de Albert Einstein. En otras palabras, a partir de una síntesis pragmática, se concluyó que el universo nació de una "gran explosión" conocida como el Big Bang. [...] En referencia al segundo cuento, manteniendo la representación científica con la que los autores describen la creación, los tiempos son mucho más cortos; sin embargo, aborda una temática más compleja, cuyo propósito generó considerables discusiones. A partir de este segundo ejemplo del universo se abrió un nuevo escenario, porque había quienes creían que el cosmos nunca tuvo comienzo y mucho menos podía llegar a su fin, lo que hacía pensar que, además de ser inmortal, también era inmutable en el tiempo.

De estos dos sistemas del universo en los que se basó el periodista científico a lo largo de los años, la única polémica fue la de los telescopios, porque año tras año se han ido perfeccionando y fueron cada vez más potentes y precisos: “Estas herramientas de trabajo de vanguardia, además de profundizar los análisis teóricos descubiertos por casualidad, revelaron un rastro fósil que se remonta a la explosión primordial.” Por lo tanto, con el tiempo, la acumulación de datos que los telescopios continuaron registrando mostró a la ciencia moderna que, entre los dos modelos del universo considerados para la creación del mundo, el "Big Bang" podría haber sido el más creíble.

Que el universo nació de una explosión y que la expansión del cosmos que se generó dio lugar a la formación de galaxias y estrellas sigue siendo una tesis adoptada hoy en día por científicos, astrónomos y cosmólogos. Simon Singh, al resumir las enciclopedias que relatan la teoría de la relatividad, recordó a grandes científicos como Stephen Hawking. Volvió a dilucidar sobre personas que fueron los protagonistas directos del universo, porque ellos mismos, remontándose al origen, han desvelado el misterio, por ejemplo: Fred Hoyle, que dio el nombre al modelo del universo que dura miles de millones de años y que, además, se convirtió en un oponente inflexible de la doctrina del Big Bang; evocó la fama de dos personas que, en relación con la relatividad de Albert Einstein, fueron impresionantes, ya que examinaron las ecuaciones de Einstein y extrajeron el modelo más conocido, es decir, Alexandre Friedman, meteorólogo soviético, y Georges Lemaître, un matemático y sacerdote belga.

Además, al resumir este apasionante acontecimiento, Simon escribió el libro observándolo desde una perspectiva personal: el periodista se sumergió en hechos históricos y científicos con la misma curiosidad y deseo de saber que los lectores perciben. Con gran franqueza, ha recorrido la genialidad de las personas que descifraron los misterios del Big Bang. El libro fue adornado con ilustraciones que se relacionan entre sí. Explica cuáles eran los supuestos, así como las posibles representaciones intelectuales que resumían una serie de conocimientos que podrían ser proyectados a gran escala. Singh, al relatar el Big Bang, dio énfasis a los experimentos con los que se construyó definitivamente la teoría del origen del universo. Y la fase inicial de una historia de trece mil setecientos millones de años logró ser inusualmente explícita y fácil de entender.

[Tao · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recommend reading The Big Bang Never Happened before or after reading this.

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Full of fascinating historical anecdotes and character sketches, "Big Bang" was fun as well as informative from start to finish. I struggle with physics books because my mind often has trouble grasping concepts at different scales from our own, but Singh writes and explains so well that I was not just able to understand but was able to teach it to my kids afterward! I now look at the skies differently as a result of reading this book, and my knowledge of the history of physics is a lot richer. Strongly recommended for anyone who likes science fact and history books.

[Shivam Chaturvedi · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible. - Albert Einstein

The Universe has some of the most amazing things you could ever imagine. Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Supernovas, Quasars, Galaxies, and all sorts of oddities in between. And yet the most remarkable thing is this pale blue dot, an ordinary planet orbiting an ordinary star, orbiting the core of an ordinary galaxy - one of the more than 200 billion galaxies in observable universe.


Earth, from an image taken by Cassini, from underneath the rings of Saturn during its flyby of the planet

But ofcourse the earth isn't ordinary. It isn't ordinary because we, human beings, evolved on this planet. A species that has been able to contemplate its place amongst the cosmos. A species, and let this sink in, has dared to understand the origins of this universe. A species that has come so far that its truly a miracle - perhaps the only real miracle that ever happened. Its this wondrous journey that this book aims to catalogue.

Now you have to be a bit of a space romantic to understand this book. The author obviously likes to throw in those condescending explanations that are supposed to explain it to the layman - but despite his best efforts, you can't really. There's a reason that Big Bang theory only came to be accepted across the scientific community around the 1970s - and that is because it is remarkably difficult to wrap your head around.

First, to believe that something (and the universe is a lot of something) could emerge from nothing is a bit of a leap, to say the least. For many years the argument against this argument was that this was exactly what Religion would have you believe. And the big bang wasn't some explosion in space - rather it was the explosion of space. And that is literally the start of it. Big Bang theorists would also like you to believe that for a universe that is 13.82 billion years old, they are able to predict how things were evolving a mere 10^-43 seconds after the bang. And that is utterly mind boggling.

But hey, don't let the super technical details bog you down. My suspicion always has been that the scientists who devise these theories don't understand them too well either. And that is fine. Because like everywhere else in life, it is the journey that matters. The path that has led us to this current understanding of the universe has been littered with a ensemble cast of characters, who in their own small and grand ways, have made contributions to this fascinating story. You could always go read the wikipedia article on Big Bang, and it'd tell you as much about the theory as you could ever hope to learn anyway.

The part where Simon Singh succeeds, is in telling the story of this theory. About the wonder of discovery, and the sheer delight that comes with it. For anyone who has ever loved and romanticized the universe, this book is a must. For those of you who haven't, there's still a lot more to be found than just drab details. Oh, and there's a reference to pigeon shit being referred to as white dialectic material. I found that quite funny.

[Jiwesh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant popular science writing. Fermat's Last Theorem by the same author is one of my favourite books in this genre, and The Big Bang didn't let me down either. Simon Singh limits himself to writing about the discoveries, theories and events that led to the Big Bang being accepted in the scientific community and the general public. This is great, because he doesn't have to draw analogies for various theories related to quantum gravity and talk about 11 dimensions and multiverses.

At the heart of the book is the question "How can one know so much about the universe from just looking at the sky?". The author does not simply take the usual Aristotle-Ptloemy-Copernicus-Galileo-Hubble route adopted in quite a few pop science books. He goes beyond and talks about how stellar distances have been estimated from terrestrial and cosmological observations, and refinements to them. This comes with the introduction of various characters, people as well as stars. It was refreshing to read a book a bit heavier on the experimental side, given how most books are written by theorists and are very light on the development and advances in cosmology.

Inevitably, the science starts to get diluted when the story reaches the 20th century, with spectroscopy and general relativity entering the scene, and gaps start to appear in the fairly tight, logical flow that had preceded it. It was fascinating to read the view of the Big Bang in the scientific community before the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), and how equally accepted the Steady State theory of the universe was at the time.

All in all, the book is very well-structured around the central theme, and the digressions talking about the personal lives and interactions of the scientists, though not as vivid, are interesting to read. Any mention of quantum mechanics or dark matter is relegated to a final chapter. This is definitely a popular science book I'd recommend to my non-physics and non-science friends, when I get the chance. Even though there is no mention of string theory (just verified this from the index of the book).

[Savage Bookwolf (new Mario the lone bookwolf) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Singh explains highly complex astronomical theories entertaining, vivid and memorable.

Please note that I put the original German text at the end of this review. Just if you might be interested.

A journey through the last two and a half millennia of astronomical discoveries begins in the myths and legends of various high cultures, grazes Greek astronomers and the heretical ideas of a Kepler to shift the focus ever closer to the present and the 19th and 20th centuries.
The lightness and humor with which Singh leads through the chapters opened with amusing quotes, which is scientifically often quite hearty, even more, unexpected and enjoyable. It does not diminish the fun in the least that you always know in advance who will win the race of competing hypotheses. However, what models have been designed, elevated to doctrine, and overthrown would provide material for more than one book. With what arguments and conclusions the respective defenders of an idea sought to substantiate the own truth seems bizarre sometimes.
However, if you look at the current state of research with black holes, dark matter, string theory, quantum foam and consorts, the old models seem almost harmless, innocent and understandable. In some cases, one can speak of the fortune of the father of the thesis that one of the unimaginable theories has proven in retrospect to be correct, without one could blame the conclusion of the respective scientist a mistake of reasoning. It was merely the luck or bad luck to be able to support the right or wrong idea with a more or less logically comprehensible thought building. Whether it collapsed afterward or disciples rallied around it was sometimes fate.
Moreover, they were always dazzling and bizarre figures, the scientists then and probably today. Just this display of humanity, including private anecdotes of various greatness, loosens by reading to chuckle stimulating quirks and peculiarities on the reading and dismantled in part, the high reputation of some luminaries. One may have been scientifically ingenious, but the human was sometimes still a misanthrope.
What seemed bizarre and inexplicable to the respective times of a Newton, Einstein, Hubble, Galileo, Brahe or Copernicus can be as well translated to our present-day knowledge. This is embarrassingly still in its infancy over the very nature of all the stroboscopic twinkling lights in the night sky.
Just as only fragments of the sky have been considered, mapped, and interpreted in the first place, not even to speak of exploration or understanding, the glimpses of the more profound quality are even rarer and less accurate in their correctness. In many ways, either theory has developed that result from using the effects of something unknown on known phenomena, such as gravity or light, as an explanation for the same.
Alternatively, random contemplations of cosmic events that contradict any physical order and must be filed under the note of inexplicability for the time.
So it is amusing to know that there will always be one or the other scientist who believes he has the final formula or universal explanation theory in his hands. Be it thousands of years ago, in the present or the distant future. No matter in which era, just for the sake of entertainment and cognition, these knowledge fighters should be respected on the front lines of understanding. Also, one of them will always be right, allowing a nanometer of progress in understanding the infinite and glorious complexity around, in and about us.

Singh erklärt hochkomplizierte astronomische Theorien unterhaltsam, anschaulich und einprägsam.

Eine Sternenfahrt durch die letzten zweieinhalb Jahrtausende astronomischer Erkenntnisse nimmt ihren Anfang in den Mythen und Legenden verschiedener Hochkulturen, streift griechische Astronomen und die ketzerischen Gedanken eines Kepler, um das Hauptaugenmerk immer näher zur Gegenwart und dem 19. und 20. Jahrhundert hin zu verlagern.
Die Leichtigkeit und der Humor, mit dem Singh durch die, mit amüsanten Zitaten eröffneten Kapitel führt, treffen einen bei wissenschaftlich oft doch recht deftiger Kost umso unerwarteter und erfreulicher. Es mindert den Spaß auch nicht im Geringsten, dass man vorab immer weiß, wer das Rennen der konkurrierenden Hypothesen gewinnen wird. Allein welch Modelle entworfen, zur Lehrmeinung erhoben und wieder gestürzt worden sind, würde Stoff für mehr als ein Buch liefern.
Mit welchen Argumenten und Schlussfolgerungen die jeweiligen Verfechter einer Idee die jeweilige Wahrheit zu untermauern trachteten mutet mitunter bizarr an. Wenn man sich den momentanen Stand der Forschung mit schwarzen Löchern, dunkler Materie, Stringtheorie, Quantenschaum und Konsorten jedoch betrachtet, erscheinen sie beinahe harmlos, unschuldig und nachvollziehbar. In manchen Fällen kann man vom Glück des Vaters der These sprechen, dass sich eine der jeweils unvorstellbaren Theorien im Nachhinein als richtig erwiesen hat, ohne dass man der Schlussfolgerung des jeweiligen Wissenschaftlers einen Denkfehler anlasten könnte. Es war schlichtweg das Glück oder Pech die richtige oder falsche Idee mit einem mehr oder minder logisch nachvollziehbaren Gedankengebäude untermauern zu können. Ob es danach in sich zusammenbrach oder sich Jünger darum scharten, war mitunter Schicksal.
Und schillernde und skurrile Figuren waren sie allemal, die Wissenschaftler damals und wahrscheinlich auch heute. Gerade diese Zurschaustellung der Menschlichkeit samt privater Anekdoten diverser Geistesgrößen lockert durch zum Schmunzeln anregende Macken und Eigenheiten die Lektüre auf und demontiert teilweise auch das hohe Ansehen mancher Koryphäen. Man mag wissenschaftlich genial gewesen sein, aber menschlich blieb man mitunter doch ein Misanthrop.
Was zu den jeweiligen Zeiten eines Newtons, Einsteins, , Hubbles, Galileis, Brahes oder Kopernikus bizarr und unerklärlich anmutete, kann man genau so gut auch auf unsere heutige, peinlicherweise noch immer in den Kinderschuhen steckende Erkenntnis über die wirkliche Beschaffenheit all der stroboskopisch funkelnden Lichter am Nachthimmel ummünzen. So wie nur Bruchstücke des Himmels überhaupt erst betrachtet, kartographiert und interpretiert worden sind, von Erforschung oder Verständnis gar nicht erst zu sprechen, so sind die Blicke in die tiefere Beschaffenheit noch rarer und in ihrem Richtigkeitsgehalt unsicherer.
In vielerlei Hinsicht werden entweder Theorien entwickelt, die daraus resultieren, dass man die Wirkung von etwas Unbekanntem auf bekannte Phänomene, wie etwa Schwerkraft oder Licht, als Erklärung für selbiges heranzieht. Oder es ergeben sich zufällige Betrachtungen von kosmischen Ereignissen, die jeglicher physikalischen Ordnung widersprechen und bis auf weiteres unter dem Vermerk der Unerklärlichkeit abgeheftet werden müssen.
So ist es doch amüsant zu wissen, dass es immer den einen oder anderen Wissenschaftler geben wird, der die endgültige Allformel oder die universelle Erklärungstheorie in petto zu haben glaubt. Sei es vor Jahrtausenden, in der Gegenwart oder ferner Zukunft. Egal in welcher Epoche, allein des Unterhaltungs- und Erkenntniswertes wegen ist diesen Kämpfern an der vordersten Front des Verstehens Respekt zu zollen. Und einer von Ihnen wird immer recht haben, was einen Nanometer Fortschritt im Verständnis der unendlichen und herrlichen Komplexität um, in und über uns ermöglicht.

[E.T. · Rating 5 out of 5]

As some1 who both loved Carl Sagan's Cosmos (book) and Neil Tyson's rebooted "Cosmos" on Netflix, I had to read this one. The surprise was that this one is a better book - in terms of readability, in terms of coherence, in making you understand the various steps to the Big Bang theory. It was a delightful read from start to finish.
The cover says "The most amazing and important theory of science." I strongly disagree. Perhaps the author forgot that people of non-Abrahamic religions form half the world's population. And we have never thought that the earth was created 6000 years ago. Yes, the Big Bang theory is a fascinating theory and it unravels a lot about the creation of the universe but I doubt if only by itself it has tangible value.
Overall - Dont think popular science writing gets any better. At par with Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything.

[Nicola Michelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I absolutely love this book! It’s written in a very accessible way to help the scientist and non scientist alike to understand the subject matter and was a really enjoyable read.

It first starts by laying the foundations of scientific theories and takes you on an adventure through the scientific journey of time to how the current model of the universe was arrived at. I find it amazing how the scientific method was developed and how we built on the work of others to arrive at the theories we have today!

I also loved that the book went into detail with an introduction to the scientists involved in developing the theories and mentioned about their lives which I always find interesting. I learnt so much reading this book and really glad I took the time to read it!

The end of chapter summaries were great too which I think greatly add to reinforcing what you’ve learnt throughout the chapter. There was also amazing use of many wonderful diagrams to further help cement understanding and the balance between picture and words details and outlines the concepts of Big Bang formation beautifully without the use of intense mathematics and extensive formulas! Which I think is a real testament to the author for communicating science in such a brilliant way to be understood by all. Great book!

[Tanja Berg · Rating 4 out of 5]

This translates to a short history of the cosmos. A complex theory like that of big bang builds on a lot of knowledge, so the author begins with the ancient greeks and move forward from there. The book is written with humour, insight into human nature and endless fascination about the universe. There is enthusiasm in every sentence. However, the book ends with the final proof that there really was an explosive start to the universe, which somehow feels a bit anti-climatic. "Wasn't there more?" Of course there's more, just not in this book. Nonetheless, a terrific read for any lay reader with a sound curiousity about the world we live in and where it came from.

[Gilda Bonelli · Rating 4 out of 5]

Simon Singh è uno scrittore e giornalista scientifico. Durante diversi anni lavorò presso la BBC come produttore televisivo per la realizzazione di documentari.
Nell’ambito della letteratura è pieno di scrittori o poeti che per scrivere un libro considerano due o più storie e in maniera parallela dalla sintesi di queste ricavano il loro racconto. E così ha fatto Simon Singh con il libro. Il giornalista stando al concetto che c’è qualcosa d’unico nella teoria del Big Bang con la più rigorosa scientificità indagò quella che sarebbe stata la creazione del mondo. Si è dedicato alla ricerca degli uomini che svelarono la misteriosa origine dell‘universo ed emblematicamente nel libro ha generalizzato con due storie equidistanti; questi racconti presi in considerazione se pur in armonia fra loro s’intrecciano con notevole rilievo, chiarendo persuasioni già acquisite ma alla volta lasciando ancora aperti i problemi del passato.
La prima narrazione lunga miliardi e miliardi di anni fu quella nata da un’esplosione: considerando alcuna dissertazione dell’origine dell’universo e coloro che scrissero la storia da un primo schema cosmologico appartenente al secolo scorso e dal quale furono scritte intere enciclopedie s’ispirò alla teoria della relatività di Albert Einstein. Con altre parole, da una sintesi pragmatica impresse che l’universo nacque da un "grande botto" conosciuto col nome di Big Bang. D’altro canto, nel secondo racconto di riferimento mantenendo la rappresentazione scientifica con la quale gli autori precedessori la descrivono i tempi del creato sono molto più brevi, però da una tematica maggiormente complessa dove il contesto nel suo proposito ricevette notevoli discussioni: da questo secondo esempio dell’universo si aprì un nuovo scenario perché c’era chi ritenne che il Cosmo non ebbe mai un inizio e molto meno avrebbe potuto giungere a una fine, cosa da fargli pensare che oltre essere immortale sia stato pure immutabile nel tempo.
Conseguentemente, di questi due sistemi dell’universo ai quali il giornalista scientifico attinse, col passare degli anni l’unica controversia fu resa dai telescopi che anno dopo anno sono stati perfezionati ed erano sempre più potenti e precisi. Questi strumenti di lavoro d’avanguardia oltre ad approfondire analisi teoriche casualmente fecero scoprire una traccia fossile risalente a l’esplosione primordiale. Perciò col trascorrere del tempo l’accumulo dei dati che i telescopi continuarono a registrare alla scienza moderna mostrarono che fra i due esempi di universo considerati per la creazione del Mondo il "Big Bang" sarebbe potuto essere il modello più accreditabile. Tuttavia, nel riepilogare le enciclopedie che raccontano la teoria della relatività ha ricordato taluni scritti di grandi scienziati come Stephen Hawking. Delucidò nuovamente le persone che furono i protagonisti diretti dell’universo poiché questi scienziati retrocedendo sino all’origine hanno svelato il mistero, per esempio: Fred Hoyle, il quale nonostante attribuì il nome al modello dell’universo che dura da miliardi e miliardi di anni è pure vero che della dottrina sul Big Bang diventò un oppositore irremovibile. Ha rievocato la fama di due persone che furono imponenti nei confronti della relatività, quali figure le equazioni di Albert Einstein l’esaminarono e insieme addussero il modello più conosciuto, ossia il nome di Alexandre Friedman, meteorologo sovietico, e quello di Georges Lemaître, quest’altro matematico e sacerdote belga; che l’universo nacque da un’esplosione e l’espansione del Cosmo generata diede origine alla formazione di galassie e stelle rimane una tesi che al giorno d’oggi è abbracciata da scienziati, astronomi e cosmologi.
Inoltre nel riassumere questo entusiasmante avvenimento Simon lo fece osservandolo da una prospettiva personale: il giornalista s’è immerso nelle vicende storiche e scientifiche con la stessa curiosità e desiderio di conoscere che i lettori percepiscono nei confronti dei suoi libri. Tutta questa ripetizione del genio di coloro che decifrarono i misteri del Big Bang l’autore la realizzò con molta schiettezza. Il libro l’ha ornato con illustrazioni che sono affini fra loro in maniera da poterne spiegare quelle che sono state le supposizioni, come pure le possibili rappresentazioni intellettuali che riassumevano a sé tutta quella serie di conoscenze che potevano essere prospettate su larga scala. Singh raccontando il Big Bang diede risalto agli esperimenti con i quali si edificò definitivamente la teoria dell’origine dell’universo. E la fase iniziale di una storia che si estende per tredicimiliardi e settecentomilioni di anni è riuscito a farla risultare insolitamente esplicita e di facile comprensione.

[S.Ach · Rating 5 out of 5]

My wondering thrust me to a world of infinity. Confusion reached its nadir and I gasped to know it all. Remembering 'Don't Panic', I started to organize my thoughts. I gathered the first step towards solving any of my bewilderment would be to understand the theories of how it all began - the universe, the time, the life. I turned to Stephan Hawking's widely unread bestseller 'A Brief History of Time'. Though it answered some of my questions, in turn posed many more than before. I realized that to move further I have to take a peep into Mr Einstein's mind. Since my small mind is too simple to comprehend any complexities, I rather chose "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin Gardner. With vivid illustrations, the author tried to make me appreciate both the special and general theories of relativity, the concepts of space-time, the twin paradox, et al. But again, I was not thoroughly convinced about my understanding. I oscillated between 'Oh! Now, I got it' and 'You lost me again.'

Desperate to get rid of the pricking confusions, I searched for a good source. In my favourite old book store, I found this book lying in one corner with "Big Bang" written over its cover and below it an Indian name 'Simon Singh'. Reluctantly I put it in my book-cart. And as I read through I became more and more convinced that this is by far the best book on this topic I had come across. The ease with which Singh has explained the concept of "Time is personal" made me a big fan of the book. It not only clarified many of my doubts, but also fed me lots of food for thoughts. In the course of explaining the theories of universe, the book with a very illustrious way takes the reader through the history of the evolution of these ideas. With humourous anecdotes related to famous scientists it amuses the reader while explaining the most complicated fundamentals.

What I find the best about this book is - it doesn't try to be too technical with physics mumbo jumbo, rather it tries to explain each concept in a layman's way without discussing a single mathematical equation. Probably the author realized the essence of this Einstein saying - "If you can't explain something to a six-year-old, you really don't understand it yourself." The book mightn't have answered all my questions, but it did take me through Copernicus to Hoyle in a lyrical manner. Reading it, the model of big bang has come alive in my mind. It definitely opened a window to cosmos. Today's sky looks so different and intriguing than yesterday's.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent history of science and paradigm change.

It was not until the 6th century BCE that philosophers were free to abandon accepted mythological explanations of the universe and develop their own theories. In particular, Anaximander of Miletus and Xenophanes of Colophon started us off.

Arthur Eddington speaking about Zwicky's theory: "Light is a queer thing--queerer than we imagined twenty years ago--but I should be surprised if it is as queer as all that."

George Gamow was a Ukranian born scientist. He rushed home one day from his Russian Orthodox Church to study wine and bread secreted in his cheeks. Under a microscope he discovered they were only wine and bread, not the body and blood of Christ. He later wrote: "I think this was the experiment that made me a scientist."

He also felt the Communist ideology made it impossible to discover the truth. He and his wife tried to escape across the Black Sea to Turkey in a kayak. Not very scientific of him. They had to paddle back. They were able to go to a conference in Brussels later with no intention of ever returning.

On April 14, 1948, the Washington Post had the headline "WORLD BEGAN IN 5 MINUTES."'

The word "serendipity" was coined by Sir Robert Walpole in 1754. The history of science and technology is littered with serendipity. Just look up how Velcro was invented.

Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes fame thinks the Big Bang should be called "The Horrendous Space Kablooie!"

Now even the Catholic Church tolerates the Big Bang.

[Anatoly · Rating 4 out of 5]

This one was a really interesting read. Not only physics and astronomy but also a lot of history. Most of the "science parts" are not difficult to understand and you don't really need a background to appreciate this book, just the will to learn. The writing is particularly good, filled with interesting anecdotes and humor and Simon singh is actually a great storyteller!

[Doug Anderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

love love this book. the history of science and the scientific method and the universe, in readable, understandable, engrossing form. simon singh is the bomb. sort of.

[William Schram · Rating 5 out of 5]

"In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded." I don't remember where I first read this quote, but it was from the internet. Besides being a funny statement, it betrays a lack of understanding about what the Big Bang is. It leads to more questions, most of them poised at the very beginning or just before it. In the beginning, there wasn't "nothing," everything was there; the question comes about when you try to find out how it exploded.

Author Simon Singh takes us on a journey through both Mythology and Cosmology. For instance, he takes a gander at the Creation story of Norse Mythology. Singh realizes that all Creation stories are cultural; they get shaped by the people and the environment.

Along the way, Singh discusses the reasoning of Eratosthenes. You might know him as the person that determined the size of the Earth in ancient times with the aid of Trigonometry. It shows the ingenuity of Eratosthenes and his creativity. I love reading about stuff like that because although I know about the achievement, I like to know how they did it.

Then the Dark Ages arrived, and everyone believed in an Earth-centered universe. At face value, it isn't unreasonable to assume that we are immobile in space. Only astronomers notice things like the planets and their retrograde motions. They had to invent ideas like epicycles. Finally, Copernicus posited his theory, the Heliocentric model, and Kepler refined it. That doesn't mean that Copernicus created the Heliocentric model. He rediscovered it.

Eventually, the Big Bang model came about. Hubble found evidence for the universe's expansion with the redshifting galaxies. This fact implies that there was a time where everything was together at one point.

Singh is a great writer. He explains everything clearly.

[Ankush Agarwal · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a zippy history of cosmology, from ancient idols to microwave echoes of creation, told through the stubborn folks who wouldn't let "we don't know" be the end of it. Singh packs it with wit and wonder, proving science is less about lab coats and more about people yelling "Eureka!" (or, as Asimov says, "That's funny...") over a pint.

I dove in hooked by the epigraphs up front—like James Jeans' line about space being emptier than a cathedral with just three grains of sand, or Einstein's head-scratcher: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." Singh kicks off with the old geocentric mess, where folks turned stones into gods while burning Bruno at the stake for infinite-world ideas. It's grim but funny in a dark way: Galileo snarking that God gave us brains to use them, not ignore them. And don't get me started on Aristotle assuming men have more teeth than women because... horses? Singh calls out these ego trips without lecturing, showing how "common sense" (Einstein's word for "prejudices by 18") held us back.

The real fun's in the mavericks—Chapter 4's crew of oddballs who turned telescopes into time machines. Gamow, limerick-loving physicist, dreams up "ylem" (primordial soup from a dictionary) and pegs God at 9.5 light-years away via earthquake math. Hoyle coins "Big Bang" on BBC radio as a jab at rivals, turning a dry theory into a household zinger. Then there's Hubble's Great Debate showdown: static universe vs. expanding one, settled by redshifts and wartime blackouts giving Baade killer observing nights. Singh nails the human side—Einstein going from rebel to grump, or Curie grabbing her Nobel mid-scandal because science > gossip.

What stuck with me? Those "aha" pivots, like Penzias and Wilson mistaking cosmic background radiation for pigeon mess, only for Gamow to claim it as "his nickel." It's proof curiosity trumps comfort, as Singh quotes: scientists build houses from fact-stones, not heaps. He wraps with dark matter's mysteries and Haldane's line—the universe is queerer than we can imagine—leaving you humbled but buzzing.

Clocking in under 500 pages, it's brisk, not bloated, with just enough math to feel smart without the headache. If you're into *Cosmos* vibes or pondering Ussher's 4004 BC start time (6 p.m. on a Saturday—talk about a deadline), this'll spark your feed. Made me stare at the sky longer, grinning at the farce.

[Christian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Filling in where school missed. Would highly recommend, described incredibly well and not condescending in the slightest.

[Jurgen Appelo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fabulous overview with great stories and easy-to-understand explanations.

[Ash Gawain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Simon Singh: if only you had published your book five years earlier, I would have gone into physics instead of business admin.
While I thought Hawking’s A brief History of Time was too condensed, I really appreciated the historical dimension of Singh’s Big Bang.
A new book will have to be written when a unified theory is found to explain both quantum gravity and the general relativity. I hope Singh is still around then.

[Dennis Christie · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book! A summarize of the history of cosmology. All of the story flows like a river, you cant stop reading it unless you force yourself to. The scientific explanation is simple and clear, perfect for people who has no background on cosmology.

Simon Singh really knows how to bring the readers to enjoy the journey. He brings you from how human understand earth is round; distance to moon, sun, and stars; earth centered model and sun centered model; newtonian and einsteinian gravity; single galaxy and multi-galaxy universe; and finally steady state model of universe and dynamic evolving model of universe (big bang).

This book is not only about the scientific explanations, it includes the history and the developments of the theory, complete with intense debate between scientists when they defending their models.

I really enjoyed this book, as much as i enjoyed his other book: Fermat's Enigma. Easily put to my favorite shelves and would love to recommend this book to my friends and colleagues.

[Ais · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simon Singh is one of my favorite authors. He quickly rose to this rank after I read The Code Book, loved it way more than I ever expected, and afterward devoured every other book of his I could find. He has the unique ability to write nonfiction in a way that is as readable and intriguing as fiction, while simultaneously providing the complete context of the topic he has set out to explore.

What I think is so commendable about Simon Singh is that he starts wayyyyy at the beginning of the story in history-- generations before the thought may ever occur to anyone-- so that he can tell the entirety of the meaning of the topic. To me, that is the perfect way to learn about a subject. And the fact that he can do so on a nonfiction topic-- spanning hundreds of years in his telling, dipping in and out of cosmology, mythology and physics-- and still keep it readable goes to show how adept he is at these types of books. I'm not normally a nonfiction reader because I seem to have a short attention span for anything that comes off as too dry to me, but I was actually crushingly disappointed when I later realized I had read through all of his books available.

Big Bang itself taught me a lot about a topic I thought I knew fairly well after all the times it had been mentioned in school. It turned out there was a lot that I was missing and I found it fascinating to read a more complete history.

I actually brought Big Bang home with me one Christmas for "light reading." A 500+ page book on The Big Bang Theory and the origin of the universe truly did feel like light reading to me. Of course, it ended up sparking some interesting conversation with a family member who doesn't happen to believe that the Big Bang occurred...

Finally, I also have to say that my favorite, nerdiest insult I have ever heard came from this book:

"One of the fiercest critics of the Big Bang model was the Bulgarian-born Fritz Zwicky, infamous among cosmologists for his eccentricity and recalcitrance. He had been invited to Caltech and Mount Wilson in 1925 by the Nobel Laureate Robert Millikan, and Zwicky repaid the favour by announcing on one occasion that Millikan had never had a good idea in his life. All of his colleagues were targets of his abuse and many of them were subjected to his favourite insult -- 'spherical bastard.' Just as a sphere looks the same from every direction, a spherical bastard is someone who was a bastard whatever way you looked at them."

-Big Bang by Simon Singh, Chapter 4: Mavericks of the Cosmos, page 278

Come on! A book that throws in little asides like that while teaching you about history is more than worth the read. I definitely recommend this book to anyone even slightly curious about this topic.

[Drew · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book, especially after reading Singh's work on the history and proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Singh is the perfect lay writer of science and science history. His prose flows quickly and he selects wonderful examples that explain more obscure topics. His books, and writers like him, should be assigned reading in high schools, and even middle schools, to expose kids to the wonders of science that often come across as boring and useless in typical science classes. These types of work would be a great boast to STEM, and even the arts (STEAM), showing the importance, beauty and value of writing, communicating, and philosophizing.

I guess people would assume I'd give this five stars. If I didn't know about the Big Bang and physics, I most likely would have. My rating is more a mark of how I felt about the book. It was too beginner, even though I'm certainly not a scientist. I've read a bunch and have taken several high school & college physics and astronomy classes. So, when Singh was talking about physics, the text seemed to move too slowly. Now, if I wasn't familiar with the topic, it would have been perfect. But, to be honest, I did learn some interesting physics in the book, e.g. the actual cause of redshift is related to the stretching of spacetime rather than a doppler shift effect (p. 270), how to create carbon from helium within a star (pp. 390-396), and that lithium and boron were produced around the same time helium was being created out of hydrogen (p. 398).

As for the history of science, this is where Singh excels beyond most. I loved the history, the little tidbits, the emotions and the battles behind the theories, equations and discoveries. There were so many intriguing things from the ancient world to today. I wish there had been more of these, but the book probably would have been twice as long! (The author mentions that in a Q&A appended to my edition, noting that his first draft had lots of neat items and it was about 1,000 pages long!). I'm also sad that the excitement of the public in response to these types of scientific discoveries seems to be fading, especially in the West and very especially in the US. Most people just don't seem to think science or the larger world is as exciting as spectator violence or reality TV.

I hope that writers like Singh can help put excitement and interest back in peoples' minds, and more importantly, their hearts. This is what captured me as a small boy and it has carried me to today. The wonder of a small child is something to try to grasp for each day.

[Paula Koneazny · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm a sucker for readable tomes explicating theoretical physics/ cosmology for the non-mathematically trained and feel compelled to pump up my puny understanding of the field every now and then. Singh kept me engaged almost all the way through The Big Bang(the book slacks off a bit toward the end)as he ran through the history of the science leading up to and encompassing the acceptance of The Big Bang theory as the most accurate description we now have of the origin and evolution of the universe. Most of the material here won't be new to anyone who has been paying attention or who has read such books as Brian Greene's Elegant Universe and/ or The Fabric of the Cosmos, but The Big Bang still provides a good review of the subject and an enjoyable read as well, with such anecdotes as the following to keep a reader amused: "One tall tale explains how an astronomer driving to his observatory tried to use the Doppler effect to outwit the police. Having been caught jumping a red light, the astronomer argued that the light had appeared green to him because he was moving towards it and consequently it was blueshifted. The police officer excused him the ticket for running a red light, and instead doubled the fine and gave him a speeding ticket. To achieve such a dramatic wavelength shift, the astronomer would have had to be driving at roughly 200,000,000 km/h."

[Iman ASK · Rating 5 out of 5]

فوق العاده فوق العاده فوق العاده یعنی از کتابایی هست ک خوندنش ادرنالین خون منو بالا برد و بنظرم واقعا کتاب هیولایی بود هم مطالبش هم سبک نگارش و قلم نویسندش و هم ترجمش البته این کتاب اصلیشه من ترجمشو خوندم خخخخخخخخخخخخخخ
سبک نگارشش مث ی رمان میمونه هم جذاب و هم ساده و در عین حال خیلی گویا و کامل
من قبلا دو تا کتاب از استیون هاوکینگ خوندم تو این زمینه اما کتاب های استیون هاوکینگ ب ادعای خودش برای عامه جامعه هست و بجز معادله انرژی انشتین هیچ معادله و فرمولی توش نیست اما توی کتاب سایمون سینگ فرمول بیشتر دیده میشه در حالی ک بازم کتاب سایمون سینگ بهتر و قابل فهم تره و این قدرت نوشتن سایمون سینگ رو نشون میده. کتاب سایمون سینگ مطالب سنگین و نظریه های علمی رو خیلی خوب در غالب تصویر و نمودار گنجونده ک بعضی وقتا حتی خواننده حس میکنه نویسنده داره به شعورش توهین میکنه چون ی چیزای خیلی ساده رو با عکس و نمودار با کلی توضیح بیان کرده ک البته این نشون میده ک نویسنده خواننده هدفش عامه ترین قشر جامعه تا قشر تحصیل کرده هست
ی مقداری از این نظر رو از نظرم در مورد کتاب جهان در پوست گردوی استیون هاوکینگ کپی کردم خودم اعتراف کردم ک بعدا کسی فکر نکنه مچمو گرفته خخخخخخخ
بخونیدش اگ ب داشتن اطلاعات از جهان اطرافتون علاقه مندید و اطلاعات عمومی جالبی هم بهتون میده هم در مورد مسائل علمی و حتی مقداری در مورد شخصیت دانشمندانی ک شاید اسمشون رو بارها شنیدید

[Stuart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Simon Singh is a marvellously engaging non-fiction writer. Only straying from his central subject to relay a surprising or eyebrow-raising anecdote, he manages to paint a human face on the history of our perception of the universe.

In telling the story of the Big Bang theory, the book takes you through miniature biographies and descriptions of the impact of the life-work of Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Hubble and many others who strove and discovered gems of cosmological truth through history. The anecdotes include tales of serendipitious discoveries, warring theorists, revolutionary ideas, and the barriers to understanding that plagued scientists through the ages - establishment, dogma, pesky pigeons...it's all here.

The science is explained narratively, with a rare equation thrown in after the pictures and allegories have already gotten you to a point of clear understanding.

All in all, Big Bang is an enjoyable run-through of the assembly of a long history of observable facts into a coherent theory of the universe, a triumph over the very human failings of ego and fanciful, groundless assertion.

[Trevor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my father's favourite book, I think. It is a wonderful read. Clear and fast paced, it explains such things as how we worked out how big the universe is, how we can tell how far away stars are, how we know the universe is getting bigger and many other questions you may never have wondered about at all like what is dark matter and how do we know it must be there. Many of these questions have been answered by people who in themselves would make for wonderful books - the history of physics is populated by very strange people. Some of them even have gold noses!

We humans should be incredibly proud of what we have learned about the universe. Given how small we are, how thick we can sometimes be and how huge the universe is, the fact we know anything about it at all is cause for wonder. That so few people know that we do know such a lot about the universe is cause for some shame.

This is a fascinating book about the fascinating universe we find ourselves in. It is well worth reading so as to know more about it.