What do you think?
Rate this book
Facts and Speculations in Cosmology
A thought-provoking insight into the evolution of cosmology for undergraduate students and general readers, this book shows that the mystery of the origin of the universe is far from being solved. Cosmology has advanced over time through observational evidence as well as a lot of speculation. In this historical approach, the authors argue that the speculative element has become a dominant part of modern cosmology. They show how assumptions have been made and portrayed as confirmed facts. This unique book gives not only a critical assessment of the big bang theory, but presents a host of anomalous observations, and puts forward an alternative, controversial theory on the origin of the universe. A non-mathematical account, it contains analogies from everyday life so that readers can understand the concepts easily and follow the arguments presented.
296 pages, Hardcover
First published August 31, 2008
About the author
Jayant V. Narlikar
83 books131 followersJayant Vishnu Narlikar was an Indian astrophysicist and emeritus professor at the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA). His research was on alternative cosmology. Narlikar was also an author who wrote textbooks on cosmology, popular science books, and science fiction novels and short stories.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 19, 2025
A must read for any astronomy enthusiast. It was a sneak peak into the world of 20th century astronomers and Physicists as we read the writings of 2 big names in astronomy, Narlikar and Burbridge , who worked on many vital theories and observations that have contributed to our understanding of the cosmos today. It may appear complicated when flipping through the index,but it is not a textbook and conveys its concepts to the readers in a simple manner, with the assumption that they have only done close to 9th grade physics. After an introductory book like Britannica's Astronomy 101, this book seems like a natural follow up for a deeper look into the things mentioned in the former with sprinkles of personal anecdotes regarding their experience in the field ( and the beef between big names in astronomy ;] )
April 11, 2018
Jayant Narlikar and Geoffrey Burbidge were both students and colleagues of Fred Hoyle, the most visible proponent of the "steady-state" cosmological model, an alternative to the commonly accepted "big bang" model. This book is intended to call attention to problems, both theoretical and observational, with the big bang model, problems which at the same time suggest something more like the steady-state model.
Not being an astronomer or a physicist, I'm not in a position to say whether they have a real case. They do cite a number of observations and discrepancies that seem better addressed by a revised steady-state model (the "quasi-steady-state cosmology"), as well as explanations within the bounds of their model for what have been taken as strong confirming evidence for the big bang model.
But I do think they come off as a bit . . . whiney. They think that the big bang model has won out by virtue of marketing rather than science. For example, in speaking of one aspect of the current big bang model, "inflation" in the very early universe, they say, ". . . the idea of inflation survived [early discrepancies with observations], largely because it was marketed superbly." They believe that agencies and boards that fund research or decide on how observing time at major observatories (including Hubble) is used are biased in such a way that major research is restricted to validations of the big bang model or ways of conforming it to previous evidence.
The steady-state model has one big problem. It requires continuous creation of matter, i.e., the overall mass of the universe has to be in constant increase (and it's not just conversion of energy to mass -- the whole thing has to be growing).
The authors raise a philosophical objection to the big bang, that there is a single moment, a single event that is like no other in the history of the universe. It happens only once, and scientists don't like things that happen only once -- such "singular" events are very hard to explain, especially when that event is the creation of everything.
The steady-state theory has the advantage of positing continuous rather than one-time creation. Creation happens over and over -- it's study-able, like good scientific events should be. If they are right, of course, that creation is going on now, and it should in principle be detectible. Their theory claims that such creation can only happen in regions of very high matter density, especially the centers of galaxies. They cite observations of active galactic nuclei as potentially confirming evidence. But they have no solid account of how the creation of new matter actually happens in such places.
No doubt, Narlikar and Burbidge are right in implying that science doesn't proceed via the clean, unbiased, disinterested use of "scientific method". Theories gain ground for reasons other than their ability to explain the evidence, and conceptual leaps often go beyond available evidence.
There are a lot of books that make these points (Feyerabend's Against Method, Latour's Science in Action). One that I especially admired was Halton Arp's Seeing Red. Arp's observations of anomalous redshifts are cited by Narlikar and Burbidge as challenging the standard big bang model. Arp details his inability to get the astronomical community's ear, or telescope time, to pursue observations that seemed to call into question the very way we measure large astronomical distances (the redshift-distance relationship). I think Arp's book is especially enlightening about how science is done and how the scientific community resists evidence contrary to prevailing models.
Not being an astronomer or a physicist, I'm not in a position to say whether they have a real case. They do cite a number of observations and discrepancies that seem better addressed by a revised steady-state model (the "quasi-steady-state cosmology"), as well as explanations within the bounds of their model for what have been taken as strong confirming evidence for the big bang model.
But I do think they come off as a bit . . . whiney. They think that the big bang model has won out by virtue of marketing rather than science. For example, in speaking of one aspect of the current big bang model, "inflation" in the very early universe, they say, ". . . the idea of inflation survived [early discrepancies with observations], largely because it was marketed superbly." They believe that agencies and boards that fund research or decide on how observing time at major observatories (including Hubble) is used are biased in such a way that major research is restricted to validations of the big bang model or ways of conforming it to previous evidence.
The steady-state model has one big problem. It requires continuous creation of matter, i.e., the overall mass of the universe has to be in constant increase (and it's not just conversion of energy to mass -- the whole thing has to be growing).
The authors raise a philosophical objection to the big bang, that there is a single moment, a single event that is like no other in the history of the universe. It happens only once, and scientists don't like things that happen only once -- such "singular" events are very hard to explain, especially when that event is the creation of everything.
The steady-state theory has the advantage of positing continuous rather than one-time creation. Creation happens over and over -- it's study-able, like good scientific events should be. If they are right, of course, that creation is going on now, and it should in principle be detectible. Their theory claims that such creation can only happen in regions of very high matter density, especially the centers of galaxies. They cite observations of active galactic nuclei as potentially confirming evidence. But they have no solid account of how the creation of new matter actually happens in such places.
No doubt, Narlikar and Burbidge are right in implying that science doesn't proceed via the clean, unbiased, disinterested use of "scientific method". Theories gain ground for reasons other than their ability to explain the evidence, and conceptual leaps often go beyond available evidence.
There are a lot of books that make these points (Feyerabend's Against Method, Latour's Science in Action). One that I especially admired was Halton Arp's Seeing Red. Arp's observations of anomalous redshifts are cited by Narlikar and Burbidge as challenging the standard big bang model. Arp details his inability to get the astronomical community's ear, or telescope time, to pursue observations that seemed to call into question the very way we measure large astronomical distances (the redshift-distance relationship). I think Arp's book is especially enlightening about how science is done and how the scientific community resists evidence contrary to prevailing models.
October 26, 2015
Having finished the book, I am still not in a state to say what exactly was the intended audience for the book. On the one hand, it dabbles with ideas (viz. Inflation, Microwave Background, Particle Physics) that even a science undergrad would have trouble wrapping his head around. On the other hand, it assumes that the reader is unfamiliar with the very basics of mathematical language, instanced by the fact that at several points it painstakingly explains scientific notation.
As of introducing the ideas themselves, one would say the book does a fairly good job, if one is willing to ignore the highly authoritative and preachy tone. True, they never claim their theories (Steady State, Quasi-Steady-State) are truer, just that they are more experimentally verifiable and hence more 'scientific' --- a very good point indeed, except it is almost hammered home. Speaking of experiments, at all points where the book (obligatorily) talks about surveys that present data that go against the prediction of SST/QSST and/or fit in with the BBT, the book adopts an unmistakably critical tone and in most cases is unwilling to acknowledge the authenticity of such. A recurring theme is the 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along' nature of BBT, the argument for which is not entirely convincing.
All in all, imho, take this with a handful of salt.
As of introducing the ideas themselves, one would say the book does a fairly good job, if one is willing to ignore the highly authoritative and preachy tone. True, they never claim their theories (Steady State, Quasi-Steady-State) are truer, just that they are more experimentally verifiable and hence more 'scientific' --- a very good point indeed, except it is almost hammered home. Speaking of experiments, at all points where the book (obligatorily) talks about surveys that present data that go against the prediction of SST/QSST and/or fit in with the BBT, the book adopts an unmistakably critical tone and in most cases is unwilling to acknowledge the authenticity of such. A recurring theme is the 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along' nature of BBT, the argument for which is not entirely convincing.
All in all, imho, take this with a handful of salt.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews