The Universe That Discovered Itself (Popular Science) [Paperback]

I do not understand why this book deserves a diferent name other than "The World within the World", being just a second edition with minor changes. I bought the book via internet, but if I had had the opportunity to revise it in a bookstore, surely I would not buy it. Two sections has been eliminated from the original, and five has been added (twenty pages or so) in this new version. If you realize that the book contains over a hundred sections,you will be convinced that the changes are too few to justify another title. The new sections are: The second string revolution; Questions abot the superfuture; Time travel; The outer limit; Cosmology, stars and the life. The contents of these sections are included in others of the (excellents) books written by Barrow. For example, the section Time Travel is contained in the section "Time Travel: is the universe safe for historians?" from the book "Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits" (Oxford U. P. 1998). Summarizing, if you never read "The world within the world" (Oxford U. P., 1998), you now have a good opportunity to enjoy it in its update version; otherwise, it is preferable to purchase "Pi in the Sky", "Impossibility" or anyone of the tantalizing publications from this great writer.I rate this book with five stars, the same stars corresponding to "The world...", because is the same wonderful book.

Barrow, an astronomer, is the chief advocate of the so-called "anthropic cosmological principle," which he treats in some detail in this book. There are two basic objections to this notion.

First, if chaotic inflation is correct then there should be an infinite number of universes out there, past, present and future, taking all possible physical constants. In this case, there should be no wonder that a certain percentage of these universes should happen to take fundamental constants (such as the ratio of the strength of the gravitational force versus that of the electromagnetic force) that are favorable to life. The law of large numbers means that it would be strange if NO universes should have life. A percentage of life-supporting or even life-suffusing universes would be infinite if the number of "baby" or "bubble" universes out there is indeed infinite. If a large enough number of people buy the Powerball lottery, then some people are bound to win sooner or later, no matter how small the odds. Feeling that life is special because the physical constants in our universe require "fine tuning" would be like saying that if you are the Powerball winner, that's because the lottery was designed for you and you only. And that's absurd. The jackpot is given to whoever has the winning ticket, and not just you. And more importantly, the lottery was never designed with giving away prizes as its primary goal - it was designed to bring in revenue. Winners are just an inevitable side-effect of the whole scheme. If you win, you're merely lucky. But there is nothing special about you. Of course, a lottery must have winners or else the lottery would not work. The difference between lotteries and nature is that there is no reason to suppose that life is necessary in order for universes to exist.

We can all feel life is special for other reasons, but one should not argue that this is because nature is the way it is in order that life exists without also asking why it doesn't exist in SO MANY other places. And even if our universe is the only possible one (such a view is no longer acceptable), it is still a matter of debate among physicists as to whether fine tuning actually occurred.

The other objection is that this so-called "principle" is really just an interpretation, and is in no way a scientific principle comparable to the laws of mechanics or natural selection. Sir Martin Rees says "anthropic reasoning" would be more appropriate. It does not command general consent among scientists, and is thus more like a philosophical school of thought than a genuine scientific principle. To elevate anthropic ideas to the status of "principles" is exaggerated and misleading.

In my view, scientists like Barrow who win the Templeton Prize are disqualified thereby, somewhat like athletes who test positive for banned drugs. I'm not suggesting that scientists cannot have religious beliefs (and I was surprised to know that Andre Linde, a founder of chaotic inflation, also does). I only insist that scientific research should not be misused for religious purposes. Barrow can perhaps point to distinguished scientists like Freeman Dyson and John Wheeler for sympathy with his views. But I think this only shows that even distinguished scientists can be in serious error. Nobel Laureate in Physics Steven Weinberg, who thinks more clearly about these matters than most, finds that the Weak Anthropic Principle is nothing more than "mystical mumbo jumbo" (because it's just common sense to say that if the physical constants had been any different we would not have existed), and that the Strong Anthropic Principle is unbelievable because our universe is probably not the only one.

The main virtue of this book is the breadth of its coverage and the range of subjects discussed. Its erudition is broad rather than deep.

In this small but chubby book author gives an account of history of Physics and goes into new Physics. Starts with greeks and he hates Philosophers, passes through classical Mechanics into Quantum physics with short stories of about the paradoxes and philosophical implications of Quantum Physics and into Cosmology. Half of the book with introduction and other half with Cosmological concepts. A lot of concepts are covered.
Particle Physics, Quantum Vacuum, Black Holes, Anthropologic Principles.Author has a good way of explaining things.
I enjoyed reading it.