Manny's Reviews > Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe

Cosmology and Controversy by Helge Kragh
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Jun 29, 2012

it was amazing
bookshelves: history-and-biography, science, well-i-think-its-funny
Recommended for: People seriously interested in the history of science
Read from June 29 to July 04, 2012

This is possibly the best book I have ever read on the history of science, and if you're interested in the subject I recommend it very highly. Professor Kragh sets out to describe the revolution in our concept of the universe that happened between 1915 and 1970. It is every bit as dramatic as the Copernican revolution 400 years earlier, and when he published it (1995) several of the key players were still alive; he talked to most of them, and one (Bondi) is quoted on the back as expressing his appreciation. This is a classy piece of work. The two theories in the title are the Big Bang, which eventually won, and the Steady State Theory, which mounted a spirited challenge but lost. A large part of the book is about the rivalry between these two theories, and describes how the scientific community eventually decided in favor of the Big Bang. Kragh appears to have read just about every relevant book and paper published during the period, and has done a phenomenal job of organizing this huge mass of material. I am sure there was a temptation to write a bloated thousand-page tome, but he has managed to cut it down to 390 pages of main text plus a hundred or so of end notes and bibliography, which feels just about right. He never shows off his scholarship, but concentrates on the main question: how did we reach the current state of affairs, where nearly everyone in the scientific world believes in the Big Bang? As a result, the book is engaging and highly readable. I got through it in a few days.

What I found most impressive is the way Kragh balances five different perspectives: science, history, sociology, philosophy and religion. He is in no way afraid of the science, which he clearly understands in great depth, and he presents equations and graphs whenever they are necessary to support the details of the argument. Although my own understanding of the other subjects is not really sufficient to give a critical appraisal, I found his presentation compelling. As a historian, he comes across as objective and even-handed. He has no obvious axe to grind, and tries hard to help the reader see things as they appeared at the time, not in the light of what came later. As he says, it's all too easy to look at an idea which turned out to be correct, and present it as an amazing flash of insight: often, it's more accurate to call it a lucky piece of speculation. The way he distinguishes between the two is interesting and thought-provoking. In particular, he dismisses claims that Alexander Friedmann should be considered the true originator of the Big Bang theory. Friedmann's 1922 paper was indeed the first thing written on the subject, but Kragh argues that Friedmann was just doing a piece of abstract mathematics, and never seriously considered whether it had anything to do with the real world. It so happened that it did, but we can only see that from our perspective.

As someone who works in science, I have often wished that more people would write about its sociology from the inside, but they so rarely do; Smolin's The Trouble with Physics is a fine exception, though it's hard to call Smolin impartial. Kragh comes across as a dispassionate referee, despite the fact that the debate was often highly emotional. One of the best passages occurs near the end, when the Steady State theory is starting to come apart. I had not understood that the thing which contributed most to sinking it was the non-uniform distribution of radio galaxies, as discovered by Ryle's Cambridge group during the late 50s. It all came down to the slope of a certain curve: if the gradient was less than 1.5, the Steady State theory was okay, but if it was higher then the theory was dead. In their second survey (2C), the Cambridge group found a value of 3.0, but it turned out that the results were unstable, and could not be replicated. The third survey (3C) gave a revised value of 1.8. When the results were presented at a conference, Bondi, one of the main champions of the Steady State, made an ironic comment: the number had now dropped from 3.0 to 1.8, so were there grounds for hoping that it might progress to 1.5 in the next edition? Ryle's group had put in years of work in obtaining this number, and the reputations of both groups were largely dependent on what happened. When Bondi asked his question, Ryle lost his temper completely, to the amazement of the audience; one of them said he had never seen such an open display of anger in the 30 years he had been in the field. But it turned out that the 1.8 value was solid, and Ryle later was awarded the Nobel Prize, while Bondi quit the field.

And, last but not least, philosophy and religion. One of the most extraordinary aspects of the whole affair was the sharp polarization in this area: the Big Bang theory was to a large extent the work of Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, while the leader of the Steady State side, Fred Hoyle, was a militant atheist. So many opportunities to sensationalize the narrative! Kragh examines the evidence in his calm way, and comes to a conclusion that is almost too reassuringly prosaic: even if people's religious or anti-religious beliefs predisposed them to choose their side accordingly, the debate was conducted on purely scientific grounds. Though an interesting footnote is that the Soviet Union, under Stalin, decided all cosmology was bourgeois, so Russian scientists hardly got a chance to contribute.

Such an amazing story, and such a great book! I must read some more Kragh.
25 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Cosmology and Controversy.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

06/29 page 25
5.0% "He quotes the distinguished Russian physicist Zel'dovich as saying that the history of the Universe is infinitely more interesting than the history of our theories about the Universe, but politely disagrees."
06/30 page 50
10.0% "Kragh shows the famous graph from Hubble's 1929 paper, and comments that the scattered data points would fit a quadratic curve just as well as a straight line. But the corresponding graph in his less well-known 1931 paper is much more convincing."
06/30 page 70
14.0% "In 1933, Einstein publicly calls Lemaître's theory "the most beautiful and satisfactory account of creation to which I have ever listened". Kragh says he meant it straight, but Lambert reports it as "ironic". I wonder which one is right!" 2 comments
07/01 page 85
17.0% "Eddington claims to be able to prove from first principles that there are exactly 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296 particles in the Universe. Dingle calls him an idiot, though he phrases it more politely." 3 comments
07/01 page 100
20.0% "The Swedish chemist Tandberg believes in 1927 that he has discovered cold fusion, but his patent application is rejected. A similar method is proposed in 1989 and causes an immense media storm. It turns out to be just as mistaken."
07/02 page 240
49.0% "Field equations for the Steady State theory - you add a "creation tensor" C_ij to Einstein's General Relativity equations. Intriguingly, Kragh argues that some versions of Steady State are formally equivalent to GR with non-zero cosmological constant. Which, if you take it seriously, appears to imply that dark energy could cause spontaneous creation of matter. Did Hoyle make any comments on this?"
01/17 marked as: read

Comments (showing 1-5 of 5) (5 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by René (new)

René I read Fred Hoyle's "The Intelligent Universe" a while back, and though the details of his thesis are now a little fuzzy, I remember thinking that the book was animated by spiritual beliefs though the ideas put forward, basically that life on earth was pollinated by complex extraterrestrial proteins, were upheld with solid scientific argumentation.

message 2: by Manny (last edited Jul 05, 2012 02:01AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Manny Hoyle is the most interesting person in the book. He comes across as extraordinarily gifted, but somehow lacking in judgement. You get the impression that he hated religion so much that he couldn't accept the Big Bang theory for emotional reasons - there were many occasions where he openly called it Creationist propaganda. So he formulated an alternate theory which didn't involve a beginning to the universe. He was so smart that he managed to keep it going for about 15 years, but it just turned out not to fit the facts. He never admitted it, and in the end he was essentially the only person in the scientific world who still argued for the Steady State Theory.

If you're a Christian, you may be tempted to interpret this as a lesson about the Sin of Pride.

message 3: by Abott (new) - added it

Abott "even if people's religious or anti-religious beliefs predisposed them to choose their side accordingly, the debate was conducted on purely scientific grounds."

The passion with which scientists defend their ideas is often mistaken for bigotry.

Great review Manny. I will definitely read this book.

Manny Thanks Carlo, and I really think you'll like it! I just don't understand why so few people here seem to have read this excellent book.

Manny Kragh is very interested in the relationship between religion and science, and writes remarkably well about it! I must also check out the Gould...

back to top