<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Will the Beauty of the Final Theory Be Hold out?
Review: A cosmologist and art fanatic, Mario Livio, elegantly tells the general reader about the recent observational finding that the expansion of the universe is speeding up contrary to the long-held belief of slowing-down expansion. He stresses the effect of this finding on the beauty of the fundamental theory of the universe; or rather the central theme of the book is that beauty.Livio clearly explains his requirements for the beauty in physical and cosmological theories: symmetry, simplicity, and the Copernican principle (we are nothing special). According to the author, the tentative discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe poses a frightening challenge to the beauty of the final theory by raising difficult questions about the non-zero value of the cosmological constant (or the energy of the vacuum). From the viewpoint of the Copernican principle Livio rejects resorting to the anthropic principle for giving a quick answer to those questions. The story told about the recent finding of extrasolar planets is intriguing and helps strengthen the basis of the expanding Copernican principle. The book is so good that I am tempted to write all of its minor deficiencies I have noticed: The explanation of the inflationary model is not very understandable as the author himself admits in the book. The author's bottom line for Carter's argument about the rarity of extraterrestrial intelligent civilization is rather confusing, because the latter's argument seems simply wrong due to the contradiction of his conclusion to his two-possibility reasoning, aside from the dubiousness of his crucial assumption at the start. In the last chapter Livio writes about Wheeler's view of the participatory universe, but its distinction from the anthropic principle, if any, is not made clear. The first name of the Japanese physicist and cosmologist Katsuhiko Sato is misprinted as Katsuoko. It would have been much better to include bibliography of the books cited and the photographs of many paintings referred to.
Rating:
Summary: Great book for a novice
Review: I am only 14 and want to be an astrophysisyst and I think this was a great book to start with. The book goes into good detail on everything exept for DNA and RNA. If you can relate to art, and understand the beuty of the cosmos, you will like this book ALOT. This book went by fast for me because it has such good explanations of everything in the book and was easily understandable. If you really want to study space, this is a great book to start it with.
Rating: 
Summary: a good book to follow Rees
Review: In 1998 it was observed that the expansion of the Universe, known since 1913, is in fact accelerating. Not too long ago mainstream cosomology had believed that the expansion of the Universe was slowing down, and the only question was whether the attractive force of gravity would be enough to halt or perhaps even reverse the expansion. The 1998 observations thus set cosmology back on its haunches... engendering much new (speculative) thought. If you want an update on the new cosmology, this book is probably not what you want, for it turns out that Livio's main theme is Scientific Beauty. By that he means that in order to be valid a scientific theory must be beatiful, must be: 1. Simple 2. Symmetric 3. Copernician Although he recognises that to some extent his definition is arbitrary he hopes to persuade us that his definition is reasonable. He even goes so far as to offer his grand definition gussied up as THE COSMOLOGICAL AESTHETIC PRINCIPLE. I had two problems with this book: 1. Livio does not distinguish between beauty and truth. Aristotle found the symmetry of circles to be beautiful and invented a model of the universe in which planetary orbits were perfect circles. It was beautiful, but turned out to be unrelated to reality. Livio spends a good deal of his book discussing what he (and others) want to see in the Universe. Cosmologies are evaluated based on beauty - and it is easy to lose sight that we also want to know whether they represent reality. A theory may be beautiful and wrong. 2. Livio's discussion of various cosmologic theories is disjointed and fragmented. He says one thing on one page, and contradicts himself 50 pages later. This necessitates a great deal of flipping back and forth. Sometimes it then dawns on the reader that Livio is talking about a slightly different definitions. At other times we are just left wondering. Example: Livio tells us that inflation theory and observations strongly suggest that Omega is close to or exactly unity. Elsewhere he explains that this means the Universe is flat. Yet the 1998 observations of the accelerating expansion would seem to mean that the Universe is open, the geometry is negative. Perhaps all of the above seeming contradictory statements can be true at the same time, but Livio does not elaborate. I understand Livio's desire to avoid the dread mathematical equation for the lay public. There are, however, professionals in other fields who desire to become familiar with the latest is cosmology. Some concepts are made more clear by an equation or two. This would have been a much stronger book if he would have included, perhaps as optional explanatory notes, explanations that are a bit more complete than you get with words alone. This would have necessitated an equation or two but would have made the book much more valuable. It is interesting to see that thinkers in religion and cosmology both indulge themselves in the irrefutable hypothesis. If you want to pledge allegiance to, say, Eternal Inflation in which our Universe was ten to the hundredth power in line for creation, you need every bit as much faith as you do if you are enamoured with the Biblical Creation Myth. Punchline: If you want a brief review of the old cosmology as well as an introduction to what is currently going on - there has to be a better book out there somewhere. Dr. Roode proode@pol.net
Rating:
Summary: Great on cosmology, not so good on art
Review: Livio is head of the science program for the Hubble Space Telescope and as such is eminently qualified to write on the topic of cosmology. Here he not only tries to provide an overview of current thinking about the origin and evolution of the universe but also attempts to explain what makes for a beautiful theory (in short: symmetry, simplicity, and the Copernican principle, i.e., that we and/or the earth are nothing special). He definitely succeeds at the former. In fact, this may be one of the best and easiest to follow explanations of the Big Bang and the inflationary universe that I have encountered. Going beyond that, though, he seems to overstretch himself: he attempts to be more dramatic by including several imagined dialogues involving (at various points) Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, none of which are particularly successful. And his attempts to relate beauty in physics to artistic beauty are undercut by a production limitation: none of the paintings to which he refers are represented in the book. In fact, except for the cover (which incorporates a painting never mentioned in the text), there are no illustrations at all except for a few abstract, explanatory ones-strange for a book with the phrase "beauty of the cosmos" in the subtitle. Still, this remains an excellent layman's book on cosmology and is sufficiently up-to-date to include the recent discovery that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. Highly recommended for those interested in the subject.
Rating: 
Summary: Good general summary but problematic premise
Review: Mario Livio, the scientific chief of the Hubble Space Telescope project, has written a book with a lot of potential. Considering the implications of recent discoveries that distant galaxies are farther away (and thus receding faster) than expected, with the concomitant suggestion of accelerating cosmic expansion, Livio ponders what this means for cosmological models. He concerns himself here with the junction of scientific theories and aesthetic concerns, the beauty and elegance that seem to have characterized some of the best theories (e.g. Newton's mechanics, Einsteinian general relativity). He suggests that 3 key criteria be used to evaluate the quality of a new cosmological theory-- symmetry, simplicity, and the Copernican principle (the "principle of mediocrity" or, generally, the idea that earth is nothing special in the universe). Livio's book fails, unfortunately, for several reasons. (1) One problem is technical: For all the emphasis that Livio puts on beauty and the relation of excellent scientific theories to great art, his book has oddly omitted the occasional figure with an example of such great art-- paintings, sculptures, illustrations, something that a reader can relate his ideas to. (2) Livio is clearly enthusiastic about his field and his work with the Hubble Space Telescope, and this is a good thing overall. But he becomes too enamored with the recent discoveries and does not properly think through what they are implying. Rather than humbly admitting what astrophysicists and cosmologists constantly repeat in the journals-- the fact that we simply don't know what the current observations truly mean, and what is impelling them-- Livio overreaches here. We don't know the source of the "cosmological constant" that seems to be doing the accelerating, nor exactly how it manifests (or how it did so in the past). Yet Livio claims that it basically maps out the trend of cosmological progression, then proceeds in all kinds of unfounded detail about what it means. This comes out when Livio suggests that the future is now better known than the cosmic past-- an obviously ludicrous conclusion, since not just cosmological theories but fundamental ways of regarding the cosmos and basic assumptions change, and (especially recently) with rapidity. Moreover, no matter what process is discerned, it is simply not possible to say more than the vaguest thing about what it means overall since, in general, our understanding of the universe and spacetime is developing yet still nascent in so many ways. Most puzzlingly, Livio proceeds from this shaky basis to map out a picture of the cosmos which he claims to be beautiful, but is simplistic and downright dull. Which leads to the third problem: (3) In choosing his criteria for evaluating theory, Livio introduces a regrettable bias. Desires for symmetry and simplicity have been present since Galileo's time. But Livio seems almost obsessed with the Copernican principle. I myself share his predilection for the principle, and would hope that theorists would tend to formulate cosmological models without having to invoke anything special about earth or what has happened here. But we cannot assume up front that this is going to be the case; the evidence has to decide that, not a personal preference. When Livio cites the Copernican principle it seems to be in response to the so-called anthropic principles, the "strong anthropic principle" suggesting some kind of life-promoting design in the cosmos and the "weak anthropic principle" stating the obvious-- life is here on earth, and there must be something about the physical constants and forces that is conducive to it. Livio is justifiably hesitant with regard to the strong version, but is in danger of neglecting the obvious fact of the weak version. Earth, in some sense, might seem "messy" and "incongruent" with regard to the criteria that Livio sets up, but the planet may indeed turn out to be special, especially when the enigma of earth's biology is considered. We should not assume that up front, but nor should we rule it out; cosmological theories have to be open to different possibilities. As one reviewer below pointed out, Aristotle's musical spheres picture was very beautiful, but it turned out to be flat wrong. Accurate theories in cosmology may turn out not to have simplicity to be comprehensive, and the Copernican principle may not be appropriate, at least in certain respects; we have to be open to that possibility, which suggests that Livio's Cosmological Aesthetic Principle might be a questionable set of criteria.
Rating: 
Summary: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
Review: Mario Livio, the scientific chief of the Hubble Space Telescope project, has written a book with a lot of potential. Considering the implications of recent discoveries that distant galaxies are farther away (and thus receding faster) than expected, with the concomitant suggestion of accelerating cosmic expansion, Livio ponders what this means for cosmological models. He concerns himself here with the junction of scientific theories and aesthetic concerns, the beauty and elegance that seem to have characterized some of the best theories (e.g. Newton's mechanics, Einsteinian general relativity). He suggests that 3 key criteria be used to evaluate the quality of a new cosmological theory-- symmetry, simplicity, and the Copernican principle (the "principle of mediocrity" or, generally, the idea that earth is nothing special in the universe). Livio's book fails, unfortunately, for several reasons. (1) One problem is technical: For all the emphasis that Livio puts on beauty and the relation of excellent scientific theories to great art, his book has oddly omitted the occasional figure with an example of such great art-- paintings, sculptures, illustrations, something that a reader can relate his ideas to. (2) Livio is clearly enthusiastic about his field and his work with the Hubble Space Telescope, and this is a good thing overall. But he becomes too enamored with the recent discoveries and does not properly think through what they are implying. Rather than humbly admitting what astrophysicists and cosmologists constantly repeat in the journals-- the fact that we simply don't know what the current observations truly mean, and what is impelling them-- Livio overreaches here. We don't know the source of the "cosmological constant" that seems to be doing the accelerating, nor exactly how it manifests (or how it did so in the past). Yet Livio claims that it basically maps out the trend of cosmological progression, then proceeds in all kinds of unfounded detail about what it means. This comes out when Livio suggests that the future is now better known than the cosmic past-- an obviously ludicrous conclusion, since not just cosmological theories but fundamental ways of regarding the cosmos and basic assumptions change, and (especially recently) with rapidity. Moreover, no matter what process is discerned, it is simply not possible to say more than the vaguest thing about what it means overall since, in general, our understanding of the universe and spacetime is developing yet still nascent in so many ways. Most puzzlingly, Livio proceeds from this shaky basis to map out a picture of the cosmos which he claims to be beautiful, but is simplistic and downright dull. Which leads to the third problem: (3) In choosing his criteria for evaluating theory, Livio introduces a regrettable bias. Desires for symmetry and simplicity have been present since Galileo's time. But Livio seems almost obsessed with the Copernican principle. I myself share his predilection for the principle, and would hope that theorists would tend to formulate cosmological models without having to invoke anything special about earth or what has happened here. But we cannot assume up front that this is going to be the case; the evidence has to decide that, not a personal preference. When Livio cites the Copernican principle it seems to be in response to the so-called anthropic principles, the "strong anthropic principle" suggesting some kind of life-promoting design in the cosmos and the "weak anthropic principle" stating the obvious-- life is here on earth, and there must be something about the physical constants and forces that is conducive to it. Livio is justifiably hesitant with regard to the strong version, but is in danger of neglecting the obvious fact of the weak version. Earth, in some sense, might seem "messy" and "incongruent" with regard to the criteria that Livio sets up, but the planet may indeed turn out to be special, especially when the enigma of earth's biology is considered. We should not assume that up front, but nor should we rule it out; cosmological theories have to be open to different possibilities. As one reviewer below pointed out, Aristotle's musical spheres picture was very beautiful, but it turned out to be flat wrong. Accurate theories in cosmology may turn out not to have simplicity to be comprehensive, and the Copernican principle may not be appropriate, at least in certain respects; we have to be open to that possibility, which suggests that Livio's Cosmological Aesthetic Principle might be a questionable set of criteria.
Rating:
Summary: Modeling Is Thinking
Review: The author, Mario Livio is head of the Science Division at the Space Telescope Science Institute. Livio is a recognized world expert on novae, supernovae, and gamma-ray bursts to compact astronomical objects like white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. In this book Livio a Hubble Space Telescope scientist introduces us to cosmology as a perfectly balanced universe that is accelerating, along with a deep understanding of key concepts and theoretical ideas. Livio guides his reader through the fundamental questions about human craving for order and then connects it to the order in the creation of universe. He also explores the implications of the universal physical laws for mankind and introduces new findings. Livio in this book embarks on discovering the new revolution under way in cosmology. In one of the most starting discoveries in cosmology in the century, astronomers last year determined that the universe is flying apart at an ever-faster rate. This 'acceleration' has smashed the popular idea of a perfectly balanced 'beautiful' universe and kicked off what Scientific American has proclaimed as a new revolution in cosmology. In his book Livio introduces new findings and explores their astonishing implications. Was Einstein's 'greatest blunder'--his idea of a cosmological constant--a brilliant insight after all? Is there a mysterious kind of energy that fills 'empty' space? Must we abandon the long cherished view of a beautiful universe? If so, the accelerating universe may prove as traumatic a finding as was the heretical notion that the Earth was not the center of the universe to Galileo's inquisitors. Livio elaborates on searching for beauty in the realm of cosmological theories. The book provides and overview of cosmology as well as an aesthetic argument. Livio is concerned with abstract beauty, stemming partly from the simplicity and symmetry of physical laws that are 'symmetrical' in that they do not change with an object's position in space and time. Livio associates such beauty with the 'Copernican principle' that humans do not occupy a privileged place in the universe (much as Copernicus discerned that Earth is not at the center of the solar system). In other words, a beautiful cosmological theory would not depend on wild coincidences or contrivances. Here, Livio enters controversial territory. There has been growing debate in recent years, even beyond the physics community, about whether some aspects of the cosmos, such as the strength of gravity, are 'fine tuned' for life, an if so what this signifies. It's sometimes held to have religious meaning, but could also mean, among other things, that there are multiple universes, or that we define life too narrowly. However, Livio's emphasis on aesthertics does little to further this debate. As he himself acknowledges toward book's end, the 'eye of the beholder' plays some role in determining what's beautiful, even in cosmology. Moreover, there's no guarantee the universe will match anyone's criterion of attractiveness. And at times, Livio's preoccupation with aesthetics seems overwrought. One unwanted finding in cosmology affects him badly: 'I had a feeling in my stomach similar to the one I had in 1975, when I heard that somebody had carried a knife into the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and managed to gouge twelve deep slashes into Rembrandt's masterpiece The Night Watch.' This book has an interesting goal, to combine cosmology and matters more closely associated with art. Unfortunately, The Accelerating Universe is less compelling that this dual focus might suggest. This book helps the reader to think, understand, draw, and evaluate patterns of order and chaos that is a part of this universe with its physical laws.
Rating:
Summary: Livio delivers.
Review: Theoretical scientists are usually the engine behind new discoveries, which leaves the burden of proof to others who deal with the real world. The discoveries of 1998 have turned the situation around in cosmology for the first time in many years. Observation has shaken the foundation of theoretical physics and leapt into the lead. When this happens you have to retrench to original tenets and start building again, since your former building of thought has collapsed around you. In that, Livio's solution of defining beauty in a theory as three basic assumptions from which to build, falls exactly on the mark. I liked particularly the insights into Einstein's theories and how they actually help explain the possibility of negative gravity. I missed a good account of the supernova 1A discovery which made possible the expansion observations, but if you are an informed layperson who wants to experience the suject of expansion, this is your book. The success does not continue, however, when theology is brought in the ecuation. That subject is for other areas of human endeavor and cosmologists are as bad as any other scientist when crossing over. All in all, this is a great book and will give you a good understanding of the new cosmology.
Rating:
Summary: Concepts of Infinite Beauty Amid Great Scientific Clarity
Review: This book deserves far more than 5 stars. Astrophysics is a subject that I stay current with about every three years or so. What a pleasant surprise it was to learn form this book that remarkable advances have occurred since my last visit to the starry science. Unless you read in this area regularly, you will find this update informative and fascinating. This book will also change your thinking in fundamental ways about what qualities scientific theories and knowledge should contain, as well as your ideas about the nature of reality and the future of the universe. That's a lot of benefit from one book. Two concepts are developed side by side in this book in an intertwined way, not unlike the two strands of DNA. The first concept is what we should look for in a rewarding scientific view of the world. The author argues for a concept of beauty in scientific theories and knowledge. This is not an aesthetic argument, but rather a practical one. When this concept has been pursued, it has advanced knowledge faster than when it was not. Although the point is not fully developed in the book, we should come to expect a symmetry and balance in reality. Whenever those qualities are lacking, we should expect to find them, and should keep looking until we do. The point the author is making is much more complex and powerful than this about scientific knolwedge, but my statement here will be enough to help you begin to understand the book's purpose. I encourage you to read and learn about it for yourself, directly from the author. The second aspect of the book is looking at current theories about the evolution of the universe since the big bang to consider what has happened and will occur. The scientific concept of beauty is applied here, and you get fascinating glimpses of the latest research from the Hubble Space Telescope and other telescopes around the world. The arguments build around new thoughts concerning the fundamental nature of matter. The physical explanations are the best I have ever read. I learned more about fundamental particles in this book than in all of the others I have read combined. What emerges is a fascinating case for the idea that there is a lot of dark matter in the universe that we cannot see. This dark matter serves to repel the light matter, and is causing the expansion of the universe (well known from the red shift phenomenon) to accelerate. If you are like me, you will develop a lot of fascinating new thoughts from this outstanding book. I also learned that I had better read up on the subject much more often, and plan to do so. After you have finished with your universal thoughts, I suggest that you also take the author's concept of beauty and apply it to other areas of knowledge where you are familiar. What is missing from the theories and knowledge that your work with? How could experiments be designed to locate those missing elements and expand knowledge, accordingly? Expand your mind and thoughts in an accelerating way as well!
Rating:
Summary: Good general summary but problematic premise
Review: This book furnishes an excellent overview of the observational finds of the past few years that have so shaken up the astronomical community with their implications. As the title indicates, Livio's book examines the discovery that the universal expansion is apparently accelerating rather than slowing down, as previously believed, due to some mysterious driving force. Livio is on the front lines, as one might say, as scientific director of the Hubble Space Telescope project, and he presents an insider's view of things.
Livio unfortunately dallies with something that he calls the cosmological aesthetic principle-- his term-- as a new framework in which to provide and organise cosmological theories. One of the central criteria is the theory's aesthetic appeal, something related to it's symmetry, copernican nature (i.e. not singling out any particular epoch or place as being special), and its overall simplicity. Livio does present some reasonable arguments. But overall his suggestion here is of dubious merit in large part because, as is apparent throughout the book, there is too much emphasising what is desired to be seen, rather than what actually is seen. There is inherently a prior presumption about how the universe should be and should behave-- a product of a particular theoretical tradition-- when the recent findings in this and other respects suggest many surprises up ahead, even at the fundamentals. The author also seems a bit too sure of himself in regard to the recent theoretical models and ideas as well as the observations themselves. The recent findings and the constantly changing nature of science itself would argue for more care in such interpretations. So the book is worth a read as a general summary, but has problems in its basic ideas.
<< 1 >>
|
