The Universe in Your Hand: A Journey Through Space, Time, and Beyond

The Universe in Your Hand: A Journey Through Space, Time, and Beyond by Christophe Galfard

This book is one of the best explorations of theoretical physics I have seen. It tells of the "story" of the person (you) as you explore space and the universe through all time. There is "time travel" as we attempt to gain a better understanding of concepts as well as "see" things first hand. I still have trouble grasping some of the details, but this book has done better at exploring some of the modern scientific thoughts than any other I have read. It covers areas from quarks to antimatter to the expansion of the entire universe.

Losing the Nobel Prize: A Story of Cosmology, Ambition, and the Perils of Science's Highest Honor

Brian Keating uses his experience to criticize the current impact of the Nobel Prize and propose solutions. The Nobel Prize encourages scientists to go out on their own, horde information and focus on being the first with "popular" science in the order to reach acclaim. Alas, this runs contrary to the interests of science. It also appears to run contrary to Nobel's original intentions. Instead, it would be better if the prize were conferred on the group of researchers rather than limit it to three individuals. There is also an unofficial "rotation" among the different fields of physics.

The bulk of the book is spent covering his research and experience and how it is colored by the current Nobel prize structure. In a rush to be recognized, a press conference was launched before outside review. His team also had to resort to inferring data from slides because an opposing team was not willing to share. He found his name removed from the top of some research studies, likely in hopes that others could get primary recognition. There was also a rush to "confirm" beliefs rather than let the data speak for itself. Personally, he also had to rush back from crucial research in Antarctica to the death bed of his dying biological father, possibly impearling his quest for a Nobel. In the end, the Nobel-seaking research ended up being a false positive obscured by cosmic dust. They missed their chance. 

There is a little bit of sour grapes in the book. However, there is a lot more introspection. He looked at what he had gone through in a quest for a Nobel and realized it was not best for him or for science. He proposed some solutions. Yet, he still acknowledges the prestige and awe of the award.

Death By Black Hole

Death by Black Hole comes from a series of essays written by an astrophysicist. The work flows well and provides a good background on the greater universe. The title topic appears closer to the end and would be quite gruesome. Your body would be cut in half, then in half again until finally all the molecules and sub-molecules are split into one unrecognizable mass.

He does a good job of describing what we know and how we got to know it. Much of it is guesswork, with more data allowing better theories to be formed. Radio telescopes allow us to find even more about the universe at large. We may only have a few billion years before the universe is destroyed. But before, the sun is likely to go out. Even before that, life on earth may be wiped out by a stray comet or asteroid. (Though we may actually be able to help prevent some of those from being too destructive.)

The study of science seems a lot like reverse engineering a computer program. We just have to see what is there, and try to figure things out. There have been many past proclaimed "end of sciences". However, since then many new theories have been put forth that better explain what we see. A good scientist can be open to all new changes.

Alas, the ending somewhat spoiled the work. There, he attempts to provide a critique of "intelligent design". He argues that scientists simply use deity as a way to credit the things that they don't understand. (Thus, if deity does not have a place in science, does that mean scientists are omniscient?) He then posits that there are so many defects in lifeforms, that there must not have been a deity. (Why would one create all those problems? Well, why would a programmer create bugs?) Then intelligent design bears the brunt of his wrath as a force that retards the growth of science. I think that takes things a little too far, and may be a result of the atheistic pushing of Hawkins and other scientists. Science and religion can work nicely together. Religion is like the high level documentation. It explains how things were done and provides some APIs for doing certain things. Science is an attempt to dissect the details and find detailed hidden features and APIs. There is no need for them to conflict. It is easy to be both religious and scientific. Science rarely disproves religion. Rather it provides alternate explanations. Religion also rarely retards science. In fact, it may help it in providing a better focus. Evolution could be a good explanation for the relgious creation. Intelligent design provides another explanation. The only harm to science is if it spends too much time worrying about it to focus on other research efforts. (Isaac Newton made huge contributions to science in spite of spending years justifying his work with religion. Perhaps his output would have been more without the religious influence, but it could have also been less.)