The Life of the Cosmos

I agree, there are a lot of ifs in this book, with a crucial one on p. 93: 'If quantum effects prevent the formation of singularities ... then time does not end in the centre of black holes, but continues into some new region of space-time.'

Smolin explains that behind the central principles of relativity and quantum mechanics lies the essential fact that 'All properties of things in the world are only aspects of relations among real things, so that they may be decribed without reference to any absolute background structures.' (p.259)
For Smolin, the future of physics is to find a solution for the tension between the atomist description of elementary particles, and their relational use in the gauge principle. He believes that string theory is part of the solution.

Smolin's point of view is partly shared by the late Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine in his difficult book 'The End of Certainty'.

Even if his theory is falsified, this book is a real bargain, because it contains magnificently clear (a real bonus) explanations of the 4 basic forces in physics, the gauge principle, symmetry breaking, quantum mechanics, gravity, the second law of thermodynamics, the theory of natural selection, Leibniz's philosophy, the reason why mathematical and logical truths may be eternal ... I could go on.
Into the bargain, it contains a deadly attack on determinism and a very polite but definitive refutation of the anthropic principle.

A great book by a true and free humanist.


some fascinating ideas, but hard going   February 18, 2001
17 out of 22 found this review helpful

I was looking forward to reading this book (despite the tiny type size mentioned previously) but found myself struggling with it. This is not because it is too technical, but more becaue of the verbose style of the author. The text is filled with tautologies and sentences that just don't make sense. One can get the gist of what Smolin is saying, but the repetition at times within the same paragraph was annoying enough to take the shine off the story. The book could be quite a bit shorter. The copious typos didn't help either.

That said, there is plenty if interesting stuff to ponder here. Perhaps because Smolin is trying to appeal to a popular audience, I sometimes found his explanations lacking in depth - for example, the assertion that certain parameters that determine the composition of the universe and its hospitability to life are fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 60th power. Not being a physicist or mathematician, I can only take what Mr Smolin says at face value. I'm also not sure about black holes being the generators of new universes - it strikes me as an idea that can never betested or proved. Perhaps the development of the grand theory that Mr Smolin ultimately hopes for will provide further support for his cosmological natural selection, through testing of new mathematical models. But I still feel that much of what he is saying will always remain beyond the scope of science, and to a large degree must be taken on faith. But I take my hat off to him for thinking so big.


Exhilarating   October 5, 2000
daniel flath (Mobile, AL United States)
9 out of 13 found this review helpful

The author's hypothesis is that universes evolve by reproduction (via black holes) and natural selection (of fundamental physical constants). No thrill compares with an intellectual thrill, and this book is as good as it gets. I was high and exhilarated while reading and remained so for days afterwards. The experience made me wonder if it is too late for me to go into physics myself. It is fun to think along with the author about really big questions, even the biggest of all. Thank you Lee Smolin for sharing your excitement with the rest of us.


A Scientist's Faith in Naturalsim Run Amuk   March 31, 2000
Deutsch (Dana Point, Ca USA)
16 out of 46 found this review helpful

There is no question that this book is the product of an unbounded thinker of possibilities. Lee Smolin's opening description of the history and current state of theoretical physics is highly understandable and makes a more compelling (albeit unconscious) argument for Intelligent Design theory rather than his one of "Cosmic Natural Selection." What is interesting is professor Smolin's rejection a priori of any answer lying outside the realm of human observation. He then summarily proposes to describe our universe as "naturally selected" to maximize the quantity of black holes; they of course being the "wombs" of new universes with their own black holes, etc. I have to ask, "Why must they create universes; why not leprechauns or fairies, for both of which we have minimally far more observational testimony"? To quote Davies & Brown from their "Ghost in the Atom", the many-worlds interpretation "introduces a preposterous amount of `excess metaphysical baggage' into our description of the physical world." Rudolph Peierls, formerly at Oxford, dismisses such a theory with a simple question: "Since we have no means of seeing or ever communication with the other universes, why invent them?" It is easily more probable to believe that 10 space/time dimensions really do coexist than to buy into a theory composed of: an infinite number of ever expanding (non-colliding?) universes, created by some unknown mechanism, in some unknown space, for some unknown reason. Who says faith is outside the realm of science? If a new theory is truly needed now, this seems an unlikely candidate.