What do you think?
Rate this book
Our Cosmic Habitat
Our universe seems strangely ‘biophilic,’ or hospitable to life. Is this providence or coincidence? According to Martin Rees, the answer depends on the answer to another question, the one posed by Einstein’s famous ‘What interests me most is whether God could have made the world differently.’ This highly engaging book centres on the fascinating consequences of the answer being ‘yes’. Rees explores the notion that our universe is just part of a vast ‘multiverse,’ or ensemble of universes, in which most of the other universes are lifeless. What we call the laws of nature would then be local bylaws, imposed in the aftermath of our own Big Bang. In this scenario, our cosmic habitat would be a special, possibly unique universe where the prevailing laws of physics allowed life to emerge. Expanding our comprehension of the cosmos, OUR COSMIC HABITAT will be read and enjoyed by all those - scientists and non-scientists alike - who are as fascinated by the universe we inhabit, as is the author himself.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 2001
About the author
Martin J. Rees
64 books301 followersMartin John Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, OM, PRS (born June 23, 1942 in York) is an English cosmologist and astrophysicist. He has been Astronomer Royal since 1995, and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge since 2004. He became President of the Royal Society on December 1, 2005.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
January 26, 2010
I picked up this book because I wanted to read Rees' book Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe. Unfortunately the library didn't have it, so I checked this one out instead. I didn't find it all that interesting. I felt like Rees was trying to cover too much in too small a book, and didn't give enough room for some additional explanation.
He does cover a lot of topics if you're looking for a good survey of cosmology/astronomy, but just know he really only skims the surface of them. But it may catch your interest to research some of the topics further. He covers the Big Bang, and the future of the Universe. He also covers whether we live in a 'Universe' or a 'Multiverse'. (He believes the latter.) He says our best chance to find this out (as well as other questions, such as what happened in the first instant of the Big Bang, what are the values of lambda, and why such a simple recipe led to such a complex cosmos) is by unifying the theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity, or the 'Theory of Everything'.
One note of interest: Rees writes "I would bet reasonable odds that by the year 2010 we will be very confident of what the dominant dark matter is, the value of lambda, and the properties of the dark energy in the vacuum." It just goes to show how very complex these aspects of cosmology are, since it is now 2010, and I don't believe we are any nearer an answer than when this book was written (2001).
He does cover a lot of topics if you're looking for a good survey of cosmology/astronomy, but just know he really only skims the surface of them. But it may catch your interest to research some of the topics further. He covers the Big Bang, and the future of the Universe. He also covers whether we live in a 'Universe' or a 'Multiverse'. (He believes the latter.) He says our best chance to find this out (as well as other questions, such as what happened in the first instant of the Big Bang, what are the values of lambda, and why such a simple recipe led to such a complex cosmos) is by unifying the theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity, or the 'Theory of Everything'.
One note of interest: Rees writes "I would bet reasonable odds that by the year 2010 we will be very confident of what the dominant dark matter is, the value of lambda, and the properties of the dark energy in the vacuum." It just goes to show how very complex these aspects of cosmology are, since it is now 2010, and I don't believe we are any nearer an answer than when this book was written (2001).
August 27, 2019
Beautiful book on cosmology from a wise astronomer
Martin Rees, who is the Astronomer Royal of Great Britain, returns here to the speculative cosmological mode that he so successfully employed in Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Others (1997) and brings us up to date on his latest thinking. He sets the tone by featuring a quotation from acclaimed science fiction writer Olaf Stapledon's novel Star Maker (1937) to the effect that all that we are and have been is "but a flicker in one day of the lives of the stars." The title Our Cosmic Habitat reinforces the long and distant view that Rees wants to assume, seeing the universe as enormously large and long-lived. The book was composed from the Scribner Lectures that Rees gave at Princeton University.
The ground covered reflects a growing trend in cosmology, that of thinking aloud and in public about matters that have little or no chance of being scientifically tested now or perhaps ever. In particular Rees speculates on the possibility and nature of other universes beyond our own. Indeed, he refers to a "multiverse" with the implication that the universe we experience is just one of a possibly infinite number of other universes, distant from us spatially, temporally and even dimensionally. In other words he seems to be talking about things we can never have any information about!
To the old physicists this must seem a sacrilege, but then Rees himself is no spring chicken! I find it refreshing that a man of his stature and reputation can so freely speculate on matters that are of such complexity and distance, as he notes on page 156, that they "may never be explained or understood." But what I think Rees is getting at, and why he feels justified as a scientist in making these speculative ventures, is that although these other possible universes are completely removed from ours in terms of any possible perception, they may in fact affect our universe in some way that may eventually be measured or otherwise discerned. For example (this is my speculation) suppose we finally did get an indisputable, proven theory of everything, somehow wedding gravity and quantum mechanics, and found that our universe was in some way--again indisputably--different from what that theory predicted. Such a difference would have to come from something outside, perhaps as the signature of an effect from another universe.
As one would expect from a senior scientist, Rees gives us some political guidance in scientific matters. On page 31 he expresses his view that a justification for going into space is to free the human race from the possibility of extinction from a "catastrophe that we bring on ourselves," through "experimental misadventure or a terrorist act that deploys techniques from bioscience." Incidentally Rees estimates that the chance in a lifetime of anyone alive today of encountering an Earth-crossing asteroid at less than 1 in 10,000, which he describes as "no lower than the risk...of being killed in an air crash." Consequently, he finds it "fully worthwhile to devote modest efforts to survey the sky for potentially dangerous...asteroids." (pp. 30-31)
Rees's treatment of string theory, now called M-theory, with its ten or eleven dimensions, is cautious. In chapter ten after remarking on the non-surprising cancellation of the Superconducting Super-Collider project, he obliquely advises young physicists to think twice before devoting their lives to string theory. He writes, "...an undue focus of talent in one highly theoretical area is likely to be frustrating for all but a few exceptionally talented (or lucky) individuals." He reminds us of Peter Medawar's "wise remark that ‘no scientist is admired for failing to solve a problem beyond his competence’." (pp. 155-156)
As in his book mentioned above, Rees confronts what he calls the "puzzlingly biophilic" (p. 45) nature of our universe and again addresses the anthropic principle. See especially Chapter 11 where he uses a metaphor from philosopher John Leslie to account for our justified surprise or lack thereof at living in our "interesting" universe rather than one with laws that "had boring consequences." Leslie has us before a firing squad with fifty marksmen who all miss. Rees writes, "If they had not all missed, you would not have survived to ponder the matter." As it is, "you would seek some further reason for your luck." The analogy here is with our luck in having a universe with "interesting consequences" that "allowed us to exist." (pp. 162-163) But I think the comparison breaks down because we had in the case of the firing squad a fine expectation of being hit, whereas no such expectation of a "boring" universe is necessarily justified. The anthropic principle is in full force here, it seems to me: we only exist in "interesting" universes.
Bottom line: this is a compelling book, written by a man who can speculate but speculate reasonably so that we are intrigued and interested rather than set awash in a sea of fanciful maybes. Rees writes with charm and a most reserved sense of humor. (Example: on page 151 he speculates on whether a universe could have more than one time dimension, wryly observing that to describe such a universe we would need "a language with more tenses.") He always qualifies his statements to the nth degree and, reflecting the wisdom of his years and experience, is never out on a limb by saying that anything possible is "impossible," as senior scientists have carelessly done in the past.
By the way, this is a beautifully designed book, with a splendid jacket designed by Tracy Baldwin. The black and white artwork illustrating the text by Richard Sword is something close to exquisite.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
Martin Rees, who is the Astronomer Royal of Great Britain, returns here to the speculative cosmological mode that he so successfully employed in Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Others (1997) and brings us up to date on his latest thinking. He sets the tone by featuring a quotation from acclaimed science fiction writer Olaf Stapledon's novel Star Maker (1937) to the effect that all that we are and have been is "but a flicker in one day of the lives of the stars." The title Our Cosmic Habitat reinforces the long and distant view that Rees wants to assume, seeing the universe as enormously large and long-lived. The book was composed from the Scribner Lectures that Rees gave at Princeton University.
The ground covered reflects a growing trend in cosmology, that of thinking aloud and in public about matters that have little or no chance of being scientifically tested now or perhaps ever. In particular Rees speculates on the possibility and nature of other universes beyond our own. Indeed, he refers to a "multiverse" with the implication that the universe we experience is just one of a possibly infinite number of other universes, distant from us spatially, temporally and even dimensionally. In other words he seems to be talking about things we can never have any information about!
To the old physicists this must seem a sacrilege, but then Rees himself is no spring chicken! I find it refreshing that a man of his stature and reputation can so freely speculate on matters that are of such complexity and distance, as he notes on page 156, that they "may never be explained or understood." But what I think Rees is getting at, and why he feels justified as a scientist in making these speculative ventures, is that although these other possible universes are completely removed from ours in terms of any possible perception, they may in fact affect our universe in some way that may eventually be measured or otherwise discerned. For example (this is my speculation) suppose we finally did get an indisputable, proven theory of everything, somehow wedding gravity and quantum mechanics, and found that our universe was in some way--again indisputably--different from what that theory predicted. Such a difference would have to come from something outside, perhaps as the signature of an effect from another universe.
As one would expect from a senior scientist, Rees gives us some political guidance in scientific matters. On page 31 he expresses his view that a justification for going into space is to free the human race from the possibility of extinction from a "catastrophe that we bring on ourselves," through "experimental misadventure or a terrorist act that deploys techniques from bioscience." Incidentally Rees estimates that the chance in a lifetime of anyone alive today of encountering an Earth-crossing asteroid at less than 1 in 10,000, which he describes as "no lower than the risk...of being killed in an air crash." Consequently, he finds it "fully worthwhile to devote modest efforts to survey the sky for potentially dangerous...asteroids." (pp. 30-31)
Rees's treatment of string theory, now called M-theory, with its ten or eleven dimensions, is cautious. In chapter ten after remarking on the non-surprising cancellation of the Superconducting Super-Collider project, he obliquely advises young physicists to think twice before devoting their lives to string theory. He writes, "...an undue focus of talent in one highly theoretical area is likely to be frustrating for all but a few exceptionally talented (or lucky) individuals." He reminds us of Peter Medawar's "wise remark that ‘no scientist is admired for failing to solve a problem beyond his competence’." (pp. 155-156)
As in his book mentioned above, Rees confronts what he calls the "puzzlingly biophilic" (p. 45) nature of our universe and again addresses the anthropic principle. See especially Chapter 11 where he uses a metaphor from philosopher John Leslie to account for our justified surprise or lack thereof at living in our "interesting" universe rather than one with laws that "had boring consequences." Leslie has us before a firing squad with fifty marksmen who all miss. Rees writes, "If they had not all missed, you would not have survived to ponder the matter." As it is, "you would seek some further reason for your luck." The analogy here is with our luck in having a universe with "interesting consequences" that "allowed us to exist." (pp. 162-163) But I think the comparison breaks down because we had in the case of the firing squad a fine expectation of being hit, whereas no such expectation of a "boring" universe is necessarily justified. The anthropic principle is in full force here, it seems to me: we only exist in "interesting" universes.
Bottom line: this is a compelling book, written by a man who can speculate but speculate reasonably so that we are intrigued and interested rather than set awash in a sea of fanciful maybes. Rees writes with charm and a most reserved sense of humor. (Example: on page 151 he speculates on whether a universe could have more than one time dimension, wryly observing that to describe such a universe we would need "a language with more tenses.") He always qualifies his statements to the nth degree and, reflecting the wisdom of his years and experience, is never out on a limb by saying that anything possible is "impossible," as senior scientists have carelessly done in the past.
By the way, this is a beautifully designed book, with a splendid jacket designed by Tracy Baldwin. The black and white artwork illustrating the text by Richard Sword is something close to exquisite.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
July 18, 2024
ik heb nieuwe dingen geleerd over multiversums en de oerknal maar over het algemeen was ik verward door protonen en lambda-waarden en andere dingen die ik niet begrijp
October 25, 2026
Still Water:
"One of Einstein's most quoted aphorisms is: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is at all comprehensible." He was here expressing his amazement that the laws of physics, which our minds are somehow attuned to understand, apply not just here on Earth, but everywhere we look. Our universe could have turned out to be an anarchic place, where atoms and the forces governing them are bafflingly different elsewhere in the cosmos from those we can study locally. But atoms in the most distant galaxies seem identical to those in laboratories. Without this simplifying feature, we would have made far less progress in understanding our cosmic environment."
"When interstellar gas contracts to form a star, its density rises a billion billion times. Any slight spin in the original gas would have been so much amplified during the collapse (a cosmic version of what happens when pirouetting ice skaters pull in their arms) that centrifugal forces would prevent all of it from contracting to the size the a star. Instead, any protostar, as it contracted, would naturally spin off a disk. In these disks, made from the gas and dust that pervades interstellar space, dust particles would stick together to make rocky "planetesimals" which in turn merge to make planets."
"Mayor and Queloz found that the light from 51 Persei shifted slightly toward the blue, and then toward the red, then toward the blue again; the pattern repeated regularly. This regularity implied that the star had a near-circular motion, induced by an unseen planet: star and planet pivot around the system's centre of mass, so that the presence of the planet makes the star itself move. The inferred planet is about the size of Jupiter and orbits at around 50kmsP-1. The star itself moves at only 50 ms^-1 - one thousand times slower than the planet because it is one thousand times heavier."
"Hubble's law does not imply that we are in a special location. Imagine all the galaxies joined by rods. If these imaginary rods all stretched in the same proportion, so that any triangle made up of three rods kept the same shape as it expanded, then an observer on any galaxy would see the same pattern of expansion. It's as though space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it. Our universe may once have been squeezed to a single point, but everyone - whether on Earth, on Andromeda, or even on the galaxies remotest from us - can equally claim to have started from that point. We cannot point to any particular location in our present universe and say, "That's the centre ": all galaxies are on the same footing.
"The first evidence [for dark matter] comes from disk galaxies, like our own Galaxy or Andromeda. Stars and gas circle around the central hub of such galaxies, at a speed such that centrifugal forces balance the gravitational pull towards the centre. This is analogous - though on a hugely larger scale - to the way the Sun's gravitational pull holds the planets in their orbits. Radio astronomers can detect clouds of cold hydrogen, orbiting for out beyond the limit of the visible disk of stars; hydrogen atoms emit at a characteristic radio wavelength of 21 cm, and the speed of the clouds can be inferred from the Doppler shift of this emission. If these outlying clouds were feeling the gravity of the stars and gas in the galaxy, then the farther out they were, the slower they would be moving - for the same reason that Pluto is moving more slowly around the Sun than Earth is. But that's not what is happening, since clouds at different distances from the galaxy all orbit at more or less the same speed. If, in our own solar system, Pluto were moving as fast as Earth, we would conclude that there is a shell of material outside Earth's orbit but still within Pluto's. Likewise, the high speed of these outlying clouds tells us that there is more to galaxies than meets the eye. The entire luminous galaxy - an assemblage of stars and glowing gas - must be embedded in a dark halo, several times heavier and more extensive."
"But people still crave explanations even when there is no underlying understanding about what's going on. A chill is blamed on drafts, damp clothing, or some other conjectured cause. likewise, erratic stock market movements always find a ready explanation in the next day's financial columns: a price rise is attributed to sentiment that "pessimism about interest rate increases was exaggerated," or to the view that "company X had been oversold." Of course these explanations are always a posteriori: commentators could offer an equally ready explanation if a stock had moved the other way."
"Matter and antimatter are not precise mirror images of each other. This asymmetry slightly favours matter over antimatter very early in cosmic expansion. The favouritism is only about one part in a billion, though. But that small effect is crucial: we owe our very existence to a difference in the ninth decimal place."
"Everything astronomers can see, stretching out to distances of 10 billion light-years, emerged from an infinitesimal speck. This astonishing idea becomes easier to swallow if we realise that, in a sense , the universe's net energy can be zero. Everything has an energy equal to mc^2. But everything also has a negative energy because of gravity. We on Earth have an energy deficit compared to an astronaut in space. But the deficit due to all the masses in the universe added together could amount to minus mc^2. In other words, the universe makes for itself a gravitational pit so deep that everything in it has a negative gravitational energy that exactly compensates for its rest-mass energy. So the energy cost of inflating our universe could actually be zero.
Cosmologists sometimes claim that the universe can arise "from nothing." But this is loose language. Even if shrunk to a point or a quantum state, our universe is latent with particles and forces: it has far more content and structure than what a philosopher calls "nothing."
Best Quote Of The Book Award 🏅
"Even if there were absolutely no technical limits to the power of telescopes, our observations are still bounded by a horizon, set by the distance that any signal, moving at the speed of light, could have travelled since the Big Bang. This horizon demarcates the spherical shell around us at which the redshift would be infinite. There is nothing special about the galaxies on this shell, any more than there is anything special about the circle that defines your horizon when you are i the middle of an ocean. On the ocean, you can see farther by climbing up your ship's mast. But our cosmic horizon cannot be extended unless the universe changes, so as to allow light to reach us from galaxies that are now beyond it."
"One of Einstein's most quoted aphorisms is: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is at all comprehensible." He was here expressing his amazement that the laws of physics, which our minds are somehow attuned to understand, apply not just here on Earth, but everywhere we look. Our universe could have turned out to be an anarchic place, where atoms and the forces governing them are bafflingly different elsewhere in the cosmos from those we can study locally. But atoms in the most distant galaxies seem identical to those in laboratories. Without this simplifying feature, we would have made far less progress in understanding our cosmic environment."
"When interstellar gas contracts to form a star, its density rises a billion billion times. Any slight spin in the original gas would have been so much amplified during the collapse (a cosmic version of what happens when pirouetting ice skaters pull in their arms) that centrifugal forces would prevent all of it from contracting to the size the a star. Instead, any protostar, as it contracted, would naturally spin off a disk. In these disks, made from the gas and dust that pervades interstellar space, dust particles would stick together to make rocky "planetesimals" which in turn merge to make planets."
"Mayor and Queloz found that the light from 51 Persei shifted slightly toward the blue, and then toward the red, then toward the blue again; the pattern repeated regularly. This regularity implied that the star had a near-circular motion, induced by an unseen planet: star and planet pivot around the system's centre of mass, so that the presence of the planet makes the star itself move. The inferred planet is about the size of Jupiter and orbits at around 50kmsP-1. The star itself moves at only 50 ms^-1 - one thousand times slower than the planet because it is one thousand times heavier."
"Hubble's law does not imply that we are in a special location. Imagine all the galaxies joined by rods. If these imaginary rods all stretched in the same proportion, so that any triangle made up of three rods kept the same shape as it expanded, then an observer on any galaxy would see the same pattern of expansion. It's as though space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it. Our universe may once have been squeezed to a single point, but everyone - whether on Earth, on Andromeda, or even on the galaxies remotest from us - can equally claim to have started from that point. We cannot point to any particular location in our present universe and say, "That's the centre ": all galaxies are on the same footing.
"The first evidence [for dark matter] comes from disk galaxies, like our own Galaxy or Andromeda. Stars and gas circle around the central hub of such galaxies, at a speed such that centrifugal forces balance the gravitational pull towards the centre. This is analogous - though on a hugely larger scale - to the way the Sun's gravitational pull holds the planets in their orbits. Radio astronomers can detect clouds of cold hydrogen, orbiting for out beyond the limit of the visible disk of stars; hydrogen atoms emit at a characteristic radio wavelength of 21 cm, and the speed of the clouds can be inferred from the Doppler shift of this emission. If these outlying clouds were feeling the gravity of the stars and gas in the galaxy, then the farther out they were, the slower they would be moving - for the same reason that Pluto is moving more slowly around the Sun than Earth is. But that's not what is happening, since clouds at different distances from the galaxy all orbit at more or less the same speed. If, in our own solar system, Pluto were moving as fast as Earth, we would conclude that there is a shell of material outside Earth's orbit but still within Pluto's. Likewise, the high speed of these outlying clouds tells us that there is more to galaxies than meets the eye. The entire luminous galaxy - an assemblage of stars and glowing gas - must be embedded in a dark halo, several times heavier and more extensive."
"But people still crave explanations even when there is no underlying understanding about what's going on. A chill is blamed on drafts, damp clothing, or some other conjectured cause. likewise, erratic stock market movements always find a ready explanation in the next day's financial columns: a price rise is attributed to sentiment that "pessimism about interest rate increases was exaggerated," or to the view that "company X had been oversold." Of course these explanations are always a posteriori: commentators could offer an equally ready explanation if a stock had moved the other way."
"Matter and antimatter are not precise mirror images of each other. This asymmetry slightly favours matter over antimatter very early in cosmic expansion. The favouritism is only about one part in a billion, though. But that small effect is crucial: we owe our very existence to a difference in the ninth decimal place."
"Everything astronomers can see, stretching out to distances of 10 billion light-years, emerged from an infinitesimal speck. This astonishing idea becomes easier to swallow if we realise that, in a sense , the universe's net energy can be zero. Everything has an energy equal to mc^2. But everything also has a negative energy because of gravity. We on Earth have an energy deficit compared to an astronaut in space. But the deficit due to all the masses in the universe added together could amount to minus mc^2. In other words, the universe makes for itself a gravitational pit so deep that everything in it has a negative gravitational energy that exactly compensates for its rest-mass energy. So the energy cost of inflating our universe could actually be zero.
Cosmologists sometimes claim that the universe can arise "from nothing." But this is loose language. Even if shrunk to a point or a quantum state, our universe is latent with particles and forces: it has far more content and structure than what a philosopher calls "nothing."
Best Quote Of The Book Award 🏅
"Even if there were absolutely no technical limits to the power of telescopes, our observations are still bounded by a horizon, set by the distance that any signal, moving at the speed of light, could have travelled since the Big Bang. This horizon demarcates the spherical shell around us at which the redshift would be infinite. There is nothing special about the galaxies on this shell, any more than there is anything special about the circle that defines your horizon when you are i the middle of an ocean. On the ocean, you can see farther by climbing up your ship's mast. But our cosmic horizon cannot be extended unless the universe changes, so as to allow light to reach us from galaxies that are now beyond it."
October 6, 2024
Had no business reading this book lmao
May 25, 2014
This is by far the best book I've read on the subject of Astrophysics. It's deep enough to give you a great understanding of the various subjects in Astrophysics but not overly technical that it becomes a slog. Martin Rees writes brilliantly in translating these ideas and left feeling like my understanding and knowledge of the Cosmos had improved. A very highly recommended book if your interested in Astrophysics.
November 13, 2012
i have huge respect for Dr. Martin Rees. this one was a pleasure to read. currently "listening" to Just 6 Numbers, thanks to Audible.
November 4, 2022
POSTED AT AMAZON 2002
This is the first compact book by Martin Rees I have read, and I like it.
He created very brief (about 200 pages only) but surprisingly complete picture of modern cosmology and scientific fields related to it.
After reading Alan Guth, Donald Goldsmith, Stephen Hawking and Igor Novikov, this book greatly summarizes and helps to put everything together: properties of our Universe, current conclusions from observations, microphysics dilemmas, speculations about time and multiverses and possible barriers further research may encounter.
Introducing Q number, Martin Rees explains cosmic texture.
Presenting simple equation for gravitational attraction he makes easy to understand negative energy of vacuum (this unfortunately in Notes, at the end of the book; should be introduced within the main text in my opinion).
I was shocked learning that our empty space could be vulnerable to a catastrophic transfiguration induced artificially by high- energy particle collisions in accelerator experiments (more about it on page 120).
Content of this book is for educated and oriented readers; author does not waste time to explain basic terms of physics. One should know for example what is "bar code" in the spectra from the galaxies.
Small correction: figure 4.1 (page 52) describes numbers:0.1 , 0.2 and 0.3 as a redshift. This is not exactly.
These numbers are related to the redshift but they represent fraction of a time since a big bang.
Concluding: if you like to read about cosmology, it is not the only subject of your interest and you want fast update - get "Our Cosmic Habitat". It will save you lots of time.
This is the first compact book by Martin Rees I have read, and I like it.
He created very brief (about 200 pages only) but surprisingly complete picture of modern cosmology and scientific fields related to it.
After reading Alan Guth, Donald Goldsmith, Stephen Hawking and Igor Novikov, this book greatly summarizes and helps to put everything together: properties of our Universe, current conclusions from observations, microphysics dilemmas, speculations about time and multiverses and possible barriers further research may encounter.
Introducing Q number, Martin Rees explains cosmic texture.
Presenting simple equation for gravitational attraction he makes easy to understand negative energy of vacuum (this unfortunately in Notes, at the end of the book; should be introduced within the main text in my opinion).
I was shocked learning that our empty space could be vulnerable to a catastrophic transfiguration induced artificially by high- energy particle collisions in accelerator experiments (more about it on page 120).
Content of this book is for educated and oriented readers; author does not waste time to explain basic terms of physics. One should know for example what is "bar code" in the spectra from the galaxies.
Small correction: figure 4.1 (page 52) describes numbers:0.1 , 0.2 and 0.3 as a redshift. This is not exactly.
These numbers are related to the redshift but they represent fraction of a time since a big bang.
Concluding: if you like to read about cosmology, it is not the only subject of your interest and you want fast update - get "Our Cosmic Habitat". It will save you lots of time.
April 29, 2025
This book is an enjoyable and thought-provoking overview of modern cosmology, written with the clarity and authority you’d expect from one of the world’s leading astrophysicists. The book touches on some of the most intriguing questions in science, such as why the laws of physics seem so finely tuned for life and whether the parameters of our universe are fixed, random, or perhaps even deliberately set. While much of the material will be familiar to readers already versed in astrophysics, Rees’s speculations about the multiverse and the nature of physical constants add a fresh dimension that keeps things interesting.
The book’s brevity makes it accessible and easy to read, but this also means that many explanations remain at a fairly high level and lack the deeper context or detail that some readers might crave. For me, this was perfectly fine since I already knew about 70% of the content from other books, and I still found the speculative discussions engaging. Compared to Simon Singh’s Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe, which dives much deeper into each topic and provides rich historical context and thorough explanations, Our Cosmic Habitat feels more like a stimulating survey than a comprehensive guide. Still, it’s a great read for anyone interested in astrophysics and the big questions about our universe, especially for those who appreciate a concise and accessible approach.
The book’s brevity makes it accessible and easy to read, but this also means that many explanations remain at a fairly high level and lack the deeper context or detail that some readers might crave. For me, this was perfectly fine since I already knew about 70% of the content from other books, and I still found the speculative discussions engaging. Compared to Simon Singh’s Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe, which dives much deeper into each topic and provides rich historical context and thorough explanations, Our Cosmic Habitat feels more like a stimulating survey than a comprehensive guide. Still, it’s a great read for anyone interested in astrophysics and the big questions about our universe, especially for those who appreciate a concise and accessible approach.
December 17, 2024
Like GR reviewer Brie, I checked this out of the library as the title by Rees I really wanted, about the final tuning of the universe, wasn't available. I figured these talks collected a quarter century ago, given the author's expertise, might address that topic, my favorite among cosmological themes, me being a.mathematically-challenged sort who all the more needs a good book about this every so often.
This dragged on as if entropy permeated its presentation. The explanations seemed obvious. The facts ones so basic even I comprehended them in many a previous counterpart for non-techie laymen like me. I couldn't rouse myself to care. Nothing appeared novel, no content what I hadn't already known.
So perhaps it's dated? Or I can match wits with fundamental explicators of our mysterious cosmos? I will try Rees' book if it ever comes out in my library's digital queue. But for this one, no dice, no go.
This dragged on as if entropy permeated its presentation. The explanations seemed obvious. The facts ones so basic even I comprehended them in many a previous counterpart for non-techie laymen like me. I couldn't rouse myself to care. Nothing appeared novel, no content what I hadn't already known.
So perhaps it's dated? Or I can match wits with fundamental explicators of our mysterious cosmos? I will try Rees' book if it ever comes out in my library's digital queue. But for this one, no dice, no go.
June 25, 2025
A star is simpler than a insect.Biologists, tackling the intrictae multilayered structures of butterflies and brains , faces tougher challenges than astronomers .... Martin rees
This is the first book by Martin Rees I have read, and I like it.Rees' book is adapted from a series of lectures he gave to a general audience at Princeton University.
He probes the seeming hospitality of the universe to life, wondering whether this fact is accidental or providential.If you have read many of the current crop of Cosmology books, nothing in here is new or surprising ..Yet Martin Rees knows how to write for the general public, which is not an easy feat for a hard-core scientist ...
This is the first book by Martin Rees I have read, and I like it.Rees' book is adapted from a series of lectures he gave to a general audience at Princeton University.
He probes the seeming hospitality of the universe to life, wondering whether this fact is accidental or providential.If you have read many of the current crop of Cosmology books, nothing in here is new or surprising ..Yet Martin Rees knows how to write for the general public, which is not an easy feat for a hard-core scientist ...
August 30, 2025
Nel frattempo leggermente datato, è stato pubblicato nel 2002, le previsioni si sono rivelate un po' ottimistiche. Ancora non sappiamo cosa siano la dark matter e la dark energy.
Comunque Martin Rees è una lettura piacevole e che fa sempre pensare.
Letto come libro in inglese.
Comunque Martin Rees è una lettura piacevole e che fa sempre pensare.
Letto come libro in inglese.
Read
March 22, 2023Very interesting survey of central topics. He writes clearly, although further explanations at times would have been helpful.
November 2, 2024
The second edition of a well written book with fairly far ranging discussions of cosmology, forces of nature, life, and the nature of our universe.
May 10, 2011
Should have begun reading this a month ago for class. Midterm tomorrow. Um, whoops. Well, it's certainly very interesting so far?
July 26, 2011
Not overly impressed -- seems to lack some coherent structure. In some ways its not in-depth enough, but works as an introduction.
October 2, 2016
Very good read on (reasonably) current cosmology.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews