Joseph Silk

The infinite cosmos

I'm not particularly keen on blogs - I prefer what I read to be more structured. This probably means that I'm not the best person to review Silk's new book, as at times it seemed to lack structure in the same way as a blog. There didn't seem to be any central thread to lead the reader through the book, and the author sometimes seemed to be repeating himself. On the other hand he is an expert in the field and it is clear that he has thought about the things he is writing about, so if you don't mind the style of writing you might consider reading this book.

I wouldn't recommend the book to the complete beginner in cosmology, who I feel would need a more structured account of the subject. Also the book lacks any suggestions for follow-up reading. But if you have already learnt a bit about cosmology, then this book is very useful in giving an overview of recent ideas in the subject. The recent observations of the Cosmological Microwave Background are described, and Silk shows what these observations can tell us about the clumping of matter in the universe, as well as giving information on whether the universe is finite or not. Towards the end the book gets more speculative, looking at the possibility of time travel, and the future of life in the universe.

Amazon.com info

Hardcover 256 pages
ISBN: 0198505108
Salesrank: 206106
Weight:1 lbs

Published: 2006 Oxford University Press, USA

Amazon price $23.10

Marketplace:New from $9.57:Used from $7.99

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Hardcover 256 pages
ISBN: 0198505108
Salesrank: 53957
Weight:1 lbs

Published: 2006 OUP Oxford

Amazon price £24.99

Marketplace:New from £9.48:Used from £7.11

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Hardcover 256 pages
ISBN: 0198505108
Salesrank: 255909
Weight:1 lbs

Published: 2006 Oxford University Press

Amazon price CDN$ 28.34

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 23.77:Used from CDN$ 9.95

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
From time immemorial, poets and philosophers have looked in awe and wonder at the Universe. Such awe is shared by astrophysicists, too as they seek to understand its nature, and whether it has any limits. In he Infinite Cosmos, Joseph Silk, Savillian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford University, cosmologist and well-known science writer, brings together the modern understanding of the Universe, its structure, its evolution, and its possible fate, combining the latest from theory and observation. The narrative is peppered with quotations from literature and philosophy, and reflects too on the process of scientific discovery and the implications of our discoveries.

Product Description

From time immemorial, poets and philosophers have looked in awe and wonder at the Universe. Such awe is shared by astrophysicists, too as they seek to understand its nature, and whether it has any limits. In he Infinite Cosmos, Joseph Silk, Savillian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford University, cosmologist and well-known science writer, brings together the modern understanding of the Universe, its structure, its evolution, and its possible fate, combining the latest from theory and observation. The narrative is peppered with quotations from literature and philosophy, and reflects too on the process of scientific discovery and the implications of our discoveries.

Which Dark Matter will you have with your Baryons? ***
When it comes to cosmology, you need your information fresh, spot on accurate, and as inspired as possible I came to SILK's book, having read about everything on Cosmology I could easily find. I found SILK's book overall inconsistant and confusing. It wasnt what he was revealing, because nearly all of it has been in recent books. Silk needed a better editor to take the time to structure this book, and commision some original diagrams to make some of the information more accessable. Good illustrations can take a very complicated "left brain" type explanation, and visualize it for us "right brain" types. A major problem with this book is that the writer doesnt seem to have a grip on WHO his audience is. IS it NASA research scientists? High school students? At one point he talks about Megaparsecs, kiloparsecs, and gigaparsecs. Now, this book as NO GLOSSERY OF TERMS. He could just as easily given distances in light years. Instead of using the most obvious terms, he obfuscates his writing, and loses his audience. Other times, he repeats explanations of the most fundamental terms. On page 26, he explains that HADRONS are BARYONs and LEPTONS. BUT, this gets explained again on page 118, when the terms of Baryonic matter gets another going over. Even on page 164, he defines baryonic matter again, and then once more tackles dark matter. If he had a chapter, that started with the basics of particle physics, and worked its way step by step into the concept of dark matter, that would have been so much clearer. This writing problem is throughout the book. On page 113, he says that stars become brighter by burning hydrogen into helium. The next sentence, he writes, "They (the stars) become brighter as their fossil fuel is gradually exhausted..". When I read that, i realized this guy was either making inside jokes with his terminology, or his editor didnt understand what was being written. FOSSIL FUELS MAKE THE STARS BURN? I saw this type of writing in many places. He says that distant galaxies produce most of their energy at infrared wavelengths. So, does he mean the energy is OBSERVED at infrared wavelengths (because of redshift), or it's produced that way? I was confused there again. (I'm sure SILK knows what he's talking about, but as a writer, his job is to make ME know what he's talking about.) The worse problem, is that the conceptual unfoldment of the book is not logical. Advanced explanations and terms get thrown sometimes in the front, at other times in the back of the book. If you had never read a book about cosmology before, you would really be lost here. In the end of these cosmology books, is where all the intellectual goodies are usually placed.....TIME TRAVEL, ALIEN LIFE FORMS, BEFORE THE BIG BANG, UNIVERSAL TOPOLOGY, and... GOD AND CONSCOUSNESS? When he started to write about God, conscousness, and how poets and theologicans are afraid of an infinite universe, i had to scratch my head. If i want theology, I'll read a theologian, and if I want poetry, i'll read a poet. When i want science, i read scientists. I have no idea why Silk was pontificating on some subjects, outside of his discipline. The oddest part of this book, is right in the title. The whole book, the writer claims that the universe is "INFINITE". Sometimes, when he speculates on the topology of the universe, Silk states the universe might be bounded, but infinite. (this is the topological part of the book, which is very obtuse. Others have commented about this as well.) A recent popular science writer, required a whole book on topology and cosmology, to explain how a hypertorus might be the shape of the universe, thereby allowing us to see multiple images of our own galaxy. But, Silk devotes less than 3 pages on the topic, and expects himself to be understood. And he isnt. So, he finally gets to the payoff, after talking about the time machines, time travel paradoxes, and the fate of the universe. After this whole book, about the INFINITE universe, he says, (pg.191) "We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite." WHAT? Why not just say that in the first chapter, and forget the circumlocutions? Anyway, there are some great ideas in the book. I'm not discrediting that. I am not sure what part of this book was Silk's original research, but popular science writers need not be scientists themselves. (By the way, there is only 4 or 5 footnotes for the whole book, so Silk isnt telling where he gets his information. And, if you think it might be in the bibliography, well, that's missing too.) I'm sure that SILK is a great scientist. It is his attitude and ability as a popular SCIENCE WRITER, that i have problems with. Difficult ideas and terms are sometimes glossed over, sometimes conflicting facts and oddball terms are introduced without explanations, and sometimes, the point you spend pages trying to prove, is tossed aside, as being without proof. I took a long time to read this, even tho almost all the material in the book, I've read before. Maybe the concept of the book was not fully thought out, or Silk didnt get enough feedback from his editor, before he published. THE INFINITE COSMOS is simutaneously both too basic and repetitive, and too advanced for the scope of a science book for the general reader. I was disappointed overall. I guess I'll stick to Kip Thorne, Hawkings, and Brian Greene.

Which Dark Matter will you have with your Baryons? ***

When it comes to cosmology, you need your information fresh, spot on accurate, and as inspired as possible I came to SILK's book, having read about everything on Cosmology I could easily find. I found SILK's book overall inconsistant and confusing. It wasnt what he was revealing, because nearly all of it has been in recent books. Silk needed a better editor to take the time to structure this book, and commision some original diagrams to make some of the information more accessable. Good illustrations can take a very complicated "left brain" type explanation, and visualize it for us "right brain" types. A major problem with this book is that the writer doesnt seem to have a grip on WHO his audience is. IS it NASA research scientists? High school students? At one point he talks about Megaparsecs, kiloparsecs, and gigaparsecs. Now, this book as NO GLOSSERY OF TERMS. He could just as easily given distances in light years. Instead of using the most obvious terms, he obfuscates his writing, and loses his audience. Other times, he repeats explanations of the most fundamental terms. On page 26, he explains that HADRONS are BARYONs and LEPTONS. BUT, this gets explained again on page 118, when the terms of Baryonic matter gets another going over. Even on page 164, he defines baryonic matter again, and then once more tackles dark matter. If he had a chapter, that started with the basics of particle physics, and worked its way step by step into the concept of dark matter, that would have been so much clearer. This writing problem is throughout the book. On page 113, he says that stars become brighter by burning hydrogen into helium. The next sentence, he writes, "They (the stars) become brighter as their fossil fuel is gradually exhausted..". When I read that, i realized this guy was either making inside jokes with his terminology, or his editor didnt understand what was being written. FOSSIL FUELS MAKE THE STARS BURN? I saw this type of writing in many places. He says that distant galaxies produce most of their energy at infrared wavelengths. So, does he mean the energy is OBSERVED at infrared wavelengths (because of redshift), or it's produced that way? I was confused there again. (I'm sure SILK knows what he's talking about, but as a writer, his job is to make ME know what he's talking about.) The worse problem, is that the conceptual unfoldment of the book is not logical. Advanced explanations and terms get thrown sometimes in the front, at other times in the back of the book. If you had never read a book about cosmology before, you would really be lost here. In the end of these cosmology books, is where all the intellectual goodies are usually placed.....TIME TRAVEL, ALIEN LIFE FORMS, BEFORE THE BIG BANG, UNIVERSAL TOPOLOGY, and... GOD AND CONSCOUSNESS? When he started to write about God, conscousness, and how poets and theologicans are afraid of an infinite universe, i had to scratch my head. If i want theology, I'll read a theologian, and if I want poetry, i'll read a poet. When i want science, i read scientists. I have no idea why Silk was pontificating on some subjects, outside of his discipline. The oddest part of this book, is right in the title. The whole book, the writer claims that the universe is "INFINITE". Sometimes, when he speculates on the topology of the universe, Silk states the universe might be bounded, but infinite. (this is the topological part of the book, which is very obtuse. Others have commented about this as well.) A recent popular science writer, required a whole book on topology and cosmology, to explain how a hypertorus might be the shape of the universe, thereby allowing us to see multiple images of our own galaxy. But, Silk devotes less than 3 pages on the topic, and expects himself to be understood. And he isnt. So, he finally gets to the payoff, after talking about the time machines, time travel paradoxes, and the fate of the universe. After this whole book, about the INFINITE universe, he says, (pg.191) "We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite." WHAT? Why not just say that in the first chapter, and forget the circumlocutions? Anyway, there are some great ideas in the book. I'm not discrediting that. I am not sure what part of this book was Silk's original research, but popular science writers need not be scientists themselves. (By the way, there is only 4 or 5 footnotes for the whole book, so Silk isnt telling where he gets his information. And, if you think it might be in the bibliography, well, that's missing too.) I'm sure that SILK is a great scientist. It is his attitude and ability as a popular SCIENCE WRITER, that i have problems with. Difficult ideas and terms are sometimes glossed over, sometimes conflicting facts and oddball terms are introduced without explanations, and sometimes, the point you spend pages trying to prove, is tossed aside, as being without proof. I took a long time to read this, even tho almost all the material in the book, I've read before. Maybe the concept of the book was not fully thought out, or Silk didnt get enough feedback from his editor, before he published. THE INFINITE COSMOS is simutaneously both too basic and repetitive, and too advanced for the scope of a science book for the general reader. I was disappointed overall. I guess I'll stick to Kip Thorne, Hawkings, and Brian Greene.

Dense and Difficult ***
As a general rule, I enjoy reading books about what is currently happening in physics. I enjoy them because I studied physics in school and taught it for many years. Not only am I trying to keep current myself, but I am also looking for things that will help my students understand physics a little better. Unfortunately, though Dr. Silk is clearly up on what is happening, he doesn't communicate it very well. This is not a book I would pass on to my students. When it comes right down to it, this is a very hard book to read. I'm reasonably well-versed in the subjects Dr. Silk is discussing and yet I found his prose unnecessarily dense and filled with numerical data that only superficially helps him make his points. Brilliant and knowledgeable he might be, but Dr. Silk has a real problem communicating his ideas in an appealing way. Certainly, unless you have a physics background and facility with a mathematical argument, I would stay away from this book. That is too bad because the subjects Dr. Silk puts before us are inherently fascinating--black holes, the fate of the universe, et.al.--and he knows his stuff. Additionally, the proliferation of books on the subject show there is an interest out there. Dr. Silk's effort, however, will not likely help many people along the path to understanding unless they are already most of the way there.

Dense and Difficult ***

As a general rule, I enjoy reading books about what is currently happening in physics. I enjoy them because I studied physics in school and taught it for many years. Not only am I trying to keep current myself, but I am also looking for things that will help my students understand physics a little better. Unfortunately, though Dr. Silk is clearly up on what is happening, he doesn't communicate it very well. This is not a book I would pass on to my students.

When it comes right down to it, this is a very hard book to read. I'm reasonably well-versed in the subjects Dr. Silk is discussing and yet I found his prose unnecessarily dense and filled with numerical data that only superficially helps him make his points. Brilliant and knowledgeable he might be, but Dr. Silk has a real problem communicating his ideas in an appealing way. Certainly, unless you have a physics background and facility with a mathematical argument, I would stay away from this book.

That is too bad because the subjects Dr. Silk puts before us are inherently fascinating--black holes, the fate of the universe, et.al.--and he knows his stuff. Additionally, the proliferation of books on the subject show there is an interest out there. Dr. Silk's effort, however, will not likely help many people along the path to understanding unless they are already most of the way there.

Where does it end? *****
Joseph Silk, a leading cosmologist, gives his latest take on the scientific quest to comprehend our universe, its origins, and where it is going. I've read Silk's book on the Big Bang (which can be considered a companion volume) and he is able to explain scientific cosmology in fairly understandable terms. Unfortunately given the scales of time and space involved, many of which are far removed from our ordinary experience, the heavy use of arcane physical concepts and mathematical ideas far from ordinary life are inevitable. Yet, the conclusion Silk offers is our universe is probably infinite. Interestingly, Silk dabbles in the possible theological and philosophical conclusions of an infinite universe, ranging from the possibility there are infinite numbers of parallell Earths and selves, to the possibility our universe is only one possible universe out of an infinite set of universes, most of which are inhospitable to life. Silk is aware of the limits of speculation (he is deeply knowledgeable about Astronomy) and gives a surprisingly positive estimate of philosophy and what it might offer science, and what science might offer to philosophy. The book is quite enjoyable, though due to its expense, more worth borrowing than buying.

Where does it end? *****

Joseph Silk, a leading cosmologist, gives his latest take on the scientific quest to comprehend our universe, its origins, and where it is going.

I've read Silk's book on the Big Bang (which can be considered a companion volume) and he is able to explain scientific cosmology in fairly understandable terms. Unfortunately given the scales of time and space involved, many of which are far removed from our ordinary experience, the heavy use of arcane physical concepts and mathematical ideas far from ordinary life are inevitable. Yet, the conclusion Silk offers is our universe is probably infinite.

Interestingly, Silk dabbles in the possible theological and philosophical conclusions of an infinite universe, ranging from the possibility there are infinite numbers of parallell Earths and selves, to the possibility our universe is only one possible universe out of an infinite set of universes, most of which are inhospitable to life. Silk is aware of the limits of speculation (he is deeply knowledgeable about Astronomy) and gives a surprisingly positive estimate of philosophy and what it might offer science, and what science might offer to philosophy.

The book is quite enjoyable, though due to its expense, more worth borrowing than buying.

He Shares the Sense of Awe We All Have *****
The best thing about this book is the sense of awe that Dr. Silk brings to his explanation of the cosmos. I do not see how anyone can look at the truly amazing discoveries, pictures, and happenings that have been announced in recent years without standing in awe. And this awe comes through on virtually every page. Combine this with the clear writing style, no math, and you have quite a book. Another aspect of the book that comes through strongly is just how completely Einstein's General Theory of Relativity underlies our present understanding of the cosmos. Today ninety years later the experimental physicists and cosmologists are still discovering proof of various aspects of Einstein's theory. In this book these discoveries are discussed, and where needed credit to Einstein is given. Quite often with such books as these, I'd really like to meet with the author over a pint of beer and ask him a few questions. There are a few points like string theory, branes, speed of the effect of gravity where it seems that the most recent theories and experiments are raising questions on the cut and fast answers that Dr. Silk gives. These points are minor when compared to the overall excellence of the book but remember that our understanding of the cosmos is constantly changing. Every discovery brings more questions.

He Shares the Sense of Awe We All Have *****

The best thing about this book is the sense of awe that Dr. Silk brings to his explanation of the cosmos. I do not see how anyone can look at the truly amazing discoveries, pictures, and happenings that have been announced in recent years without standing in awe. And this awe comes through on virtually every page. Combine this with the clear writing style, no math, and you have quite a book.

Another aspect of the book that comes through strongly is just how completely Einstein's General Theory of Relativity underlies our present understanding of the cosmos. Today ninety years later the experimental physicists and cosmologists are still discovering proof of various aspects of Einstein's theory. In this book these discoveries are discussed, and where needed credit to Einstein is given.

Quite often with such books as these, I'd really like to meet with the author over a pint of beer and ask him a few questions. There are a few points like string theory, branes, speed of the effect of gravity where it seems that the most recent theories and experiments are raising questions on the cut and fast answers that Dr. Silk gives.

These points are minor when compared to the overall excellence of the book but remember that our understanding of the cosmos is constantly changing. Every discovery brings more questions.

Why I Rate Silk (of all people) with mediocrity ***
With humility, I appear to be at the head of the queue. I was immediately captivated by the quote from Oscar Wilde on page 3: "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Joseph Silk is doubtless among the latter. His erudition is immense, and I hold his professional work in highest esteem. I enjoyed reading this "popular account" immensely. I admire his eclecticism in including a quote from Feyerabend, with which I also agree (despite the anarchist philosophy of science and politics attributed to P.F.). I do take issue with his off-hand critique of String Theory and Branes, not so much because it diametrically opposes the view of the afforementioned anarchist (with which one may assume Silk agrees), but because Silk seems to shrug off strings (Superstrings and D-Branes etc.) because not one shred of experimental evidence supports it (incidentally the only quantum-gravity synthesis that promises to eliminate the need for ad hoc elimination of quantum field singularities (off the cuff renormalization will not work in loop quantum gravity despite the claims of Lee Smolin et al. with whom I studied at the University of Waterloo. I wish to call your attention to the fact that in 1915, Albert Einstein had absolutely no empirical evidence for the Theory of General Relativity. That came later. He didn't even know that the nebulae were extra-galactic galaxies. He thought the milky-way was the universe entiere, as did most astronomers prior to Hubble. In this and other similar comments, I have a sense that Silk is not in agreement with Feyerabend's inimicable style: "The only principle that does not impede progress is that anything goes." But enough trivia. My main reason for giving this book a modest rating is not because I don't find it inspirational. I do! It is because it is presented as "popular science". One must take great care discriminating between "layman's physics" and "physics w/o equations". As one who is a card-carrying member of the C*-Algebra crowd (r.e. Arveson, Zakai, Sorbonne et. al), I can tell you that the most difficult thing I have ever undertaken was to explain to highly gifted lay-persons what the theory of operator algebras with involution on Hilbert Space is! I purchased this book in the hope my 92-year-old father could read it to get a glimmer of what it is I think about. I was disappointed. My father has his marbles and was a professor of pharmacology. But he is clueless about homogeneous and isotropic topologies, inflationary theory, variable fine structure constants (1/150), strong and weak anthropic principles (need I go on?). I believe a common perception is that popular books can be written for lay-persons if you just keep the math out. That may be true, but I fear Silk has not quite made it here. p.s. Perhaps I'll try with noncommunative geometry. Wish me luck, cause I'll need it!!

Why I Rate Silk (of all people) with mediocrity ***

With humility, I appear to be at the head of the queue. I was immediately captivated by the quote from Oscar Wilde on page 3: "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Joseph Silk is doubtless among the latter. His erudition is immense, and I hold his professional work in highest esteem. I enjoyed reading this "popular account" immensely. I admire his eclecticism in including a quote from Feyerabend, with which I also agree (despite the anarchist philosophy of science and politics attributed to P.F.). I do take issue with his off-hand critique of String Theory and Branes, not so much because it diametrically opposes the view of the afforementioned anarchist (with which one may assume Silk agrees), but because Silk seems to shrug off strings (Superstrings and D-Branes etc.) because not one shred of experimental evidence supports it (incidentally the only quantum-gravity synthesis that promises to eliminate the need for ad hoc elimination of quantum field singularities (off the cuff renormalization will not work in loop quantum gravity despite the claims of Lee Smolin et al. with whom I studied at the University of Waterloo.

I wish to call your attention to the fact that in 1915, Albert Einstein had absolutely no empirical evidence for the Theory of General Relativity. That came later. He didn't even know that the nebulae were extra-galactic galaxies. He thought the milky-way was the universe entiere, as did most astronomers prior to Hubble. In this and other similar comments, I have a sense that Silk is not in agreement with Feyerabend's inimicable style: "The only principle that does not impede progress is that anything goes."

But enough trivia. My main reason for giving this book a modest rating is not because I don't find it inspirational. I do! It is because it is presented as "popular science". One must take great care discriminating between "layman's physics" and "physics w/o equations". As one who is a card-carrying member of the C*-Algebra crowd (r.e. Arveson, Zakai, Sorbonne et. al), I can tell you that the most difficult thing I have ever undertaken was to explain to highly gifted lay-persons what the theory of operator algebras with involution on Hilbert Space is!

I purchased this book in the hope my 92-year-old father could read it to get a glimmer of what it is I think about. I was disappointed. My father has his marbles and was a professor of pharmacology. But he is clueless about homogeneous and isotropic topologies, inflationary theory, variable fine structure constants (1/150), strong and weak anthropic principles (need I go on?).

I believe a common perception is that popular books can be written for lay-persons if you just keep the math out. That may be true, but I fear Silk has not quite made it here.

p.s. Perhaps I'll try with noncommunative geometry. Wish me luck, cause I'll need it!!

Far from his best **
Joe Silk is a very distinguished cosmologist, an experienced writer of cosmology books for the popular audience, and (from my fairly limited acquaintance with him) a nice guy. I bought this book with a view to including it in the "directed reading" exercise of my introductory astronomy course, where students have to read a good popular book on some aspect of astronomy and answer questions on it. A book on a topical subject, by an acknowledged expert who is an experienced populariser - what could be more suitable? I expected it to be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, it won't be on the list. The subject is fine, but the execution has fallen far short of what I would have expected. The reason is partly that Joe has been very badly served by the editors at Oxford University Press: the book is riddled with minor errors, some of which are typos ("10 billion megaparsecs" for "10 billion parsecs", some simply careless (he twice says that melting ice RELEASES, instead of REQUIRES, energy - which would mean that adding ice to your cold drink would warm it up!), and some a consequence of overconfidence (I know he's not a stellar astrophysicist, but he really should NOT have said that the Sun will become a red giant when it starts burning helium - that's the end of the red giant phase, not the beginning). A decent scientific copy-editor should have spotted most of these. The publishers should also have insisted on a bibliography, and some decent references - not just sources for direct quotes. However, this isn't the only problem. The book also has structural faults: things get introduced in the wrong order (when the COBE experiment doesn't get discussed until 60 pages after the ground-based experiments that followed it, you know something's gone wrong), there is too much repetition, and the level is inconsistent: he explains that a billion is a thousand million, but expects his readers to be happy with entropy and ergs, neither of which is defined. It is also, I regret to say, not really very well written. I defy anyone who doesn't already know about it to make sense of the discussion of baryogenesis (the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry) in chapter 12. Chapter 19, on God, is disconnected from everything else, in the wrong place (if you must have it at all, it should be an epilogue), rambling, and poorly argued. I think this book was written in too much of a hurry. It reads like a first draft, not a finished product - perhaps he had unwisely agreed to too stringent a deadline for the copy. I know that Joe can write much better than this: indeed, his previous popular book, "On the Shores of the Unknown" (published by the opposition, Cambridge University Press; on this showing, Cambridge win this particular varsity match by a very large margin), written I think for a slightly more knowledgeable audience, is very much better, and has some nice colour pictures in it as well. Buy that one - don't buy this one.

Far from his best **

Joe Silk is a very distinguished cosmologist, an experienced writer of cosmology books for the popular audience, and (from my fairly limited acquaintance with him) a nice guy. I bought this book with a view to including it in the "directed reading" exercise of my introductory astronomy course, where students have to read a good popular book on some aspect of astronomy and answer questions on it. A book on a topical subject, by an acknowledged expert who is an experienced populariser - what could be more suitable? I expected it to be a no-brainer.

Unfortunately, it won't be on the list. The subject is fine, but the execution has fallen far short of what I would have expected. The reason is partly that Joe has been very badly served by the editors at Oxford University Press: the book is riddled with minor errors, some of which are typos ("10 billion megaparsecs" for "10 billion parsecs", some simply careless (he twice says that melting ice RELEASES, instead of REQUIRES, energy - which would mean that adding ice to your cold drink would warm it up!), and some a consequence of overconfidence (I know he's not a stellar astrophysicist, but he really should NOT have said that the Sun will become a red giant when it starts burning helium - that's the end of the red giant phase, not the beginning). A decent scientific copy-editor should have spotted most of these. The publishers should also have insisted on a bibliography, and some decent references - not just sources for direct quotes.

However, this isn't the only problem. The book also has structural faults: things get introduced in the wrong order (when the COBE experiment doesn't get discussed until 60 pages after the ground-based experiments that followed it, you know something's gone wrong), there is too much repetition, and the level is inconsistent: he explains that a billion is a thousand million, but expects his readers to be happy with entropy and ergs, neither of which is defined. It is also, I regret to say, not really very well written. I defy anyone who doesn't already know about it to make sense of the discussion of baryogenesis (the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry) in chapter 12. Chapter 19, on God, is disconnected from everything else, in the wrong place (if you must have it at all, it should be an epilogue), rambling, and poorly argued.

I think this book was written in too much of a hurry. It reads like a first draft, not a finished product - perhaps he had unwisely agreed to too stringent a deadline for the copy. I know that Joe can write much better than this: indeed, his previous popular book, "On the Shores of the Unknown" (published by the opposition, Cambridge University Press; on this showing, Cambridge win this particular varsity match by a very large margin), written I think for a slightly more knowledgeable audience, is very much better, and has some nice colour pictures in it as well. Buy that one - don't buy this one.

Cosmically disappointing. **
Joseph Silk is an expert on galaxy formation, structure and clustering. He knows how to read the cosmic microwave background for pointers on these things and for confirmation of the influence of dark matter. Unfortunately, the chapter on these topics is somewhat impenetrable for anyone not already familiar with concepts such as last scattering horizon, angular scales, sonic peaks, Compton scattering and so on. There are not even any diagrams as an aid to comprehension. The general idea is sufficiently discernible to whet the interest; but it is then necessary to get busy with Google because there is no bibliography in this book. Anyway, the earlier chapters contain so many errors that you will probably want to check everything you read by this point. Some mistakes can be put down to unchecked misprints or imprecise language, but others are just plain wrong. Examples: p18 - Earth contains 10^80 atoms (out by a factor of 10^30); p20/29 - Sun orbits galaxy every 200/100 million years (about 225 perhaps?); p36 - baryons include electrons (ouch!); p54 - Cosmic ray protons can have the energy of 1Kg dropped from the Eiffel Tower (out by x60 even for the most energetic particle ever recorded); p57 - a billion solar mass black hole has a radius equal to the diameter of Earth's orbit (out by x50; nearer to Jupiter's orbit); p71 - there are a billion galaxies within 10 billion light years (out by something like x100?). . . The chapter on supernovae combines error with unintelligibility. I wonder if it was dictated but not read. We read that Supernova 1987A (a Type II, core collapse) was lit up by decays of radioactive cobalt, first to nickel, then to iron. A glance at the periodic table shows this order must be wrong, and it is. The general scheme of events for Type I explosions is so muddled as to be harder to fault. No mention is made of mass accretion to a critical threshold as the key standardisation mechanism for Type Ia explosions. It is variously suggested that uniformity is due to a one solar mass limit on burning before core collapse, or to the ejecta consisting predominantly of iron and heavier elements. And yet we were just told that the iron decomposed to neutrons, protons and neutrinos. But hold on, some iron is converted to radioactive nickel, and yet about seven tenths of a solar mass is ejected as iron in a final burst of neutrinos. I read as far as p90 where it said that supernovae had been detected in galaxies "beyond redshift unity, corresponding to a distance of about 10 billion megaparsecs"! I wondered what sort of co-moving coordinates were in mind for the observable universe, and decided to give up and stick with Google rather than read further. Wikipedia is a good source on supernovae. So is The Magic Furnace by Marcus Chown.

Cosmically disappointing. **

Joseph Silk is an expert on galaxy formation, structure and clustering. He knows how to read the cosmic microwave background for pointers on these things and for confirmation of the influence of dark matter. Unfortunately, the chapter on these topics is somewhat impenetrable for anyone not already familiar with concepts such as last scattering horizon, angular scales, sonic peaks, Compton scattering and so on. There are not even any diagrams as an aid to comprehension. The general idea is sufficiently discernible to whet the interest; but it is then necessary to get busy with Google because there is no bibliography in this book.

Anyway, the earlier chapters contain so many errors that you will probably want to check everything you read by this point. Some mistakes can be put down to unchecked misprints or imprecise language, but others are just plain wrong.

Examples: p18 - Earth contains 10^80 atoms (out by a factor of 10^30); p20/29 - Sun orbits galaxy every 200/100 million years (about 225 perhaps?); p36 - baryons include electrons (ouch!); p54 - Cosmic ray protons can have the energy of 1Kg dropped from the Eiffel Tower (out by x60 even for the most energetic particle ever recorded); p57 - a billion solar mass black hole has a radius equal to the diameter of Earth's orbit (out by x50; nearer to Jupiter's orbit); p71 - there are a billion galaxies within 10 billion light years (out by something like x100?). . .

The chapter on supernovae combines error with unintelligibility. I wonder if it was dictated but not read. We read that Supernova 1987A (a Type II, core collapse) was lit up by decays of radioactive cobalt, first to nickel, then to iron. A glance at the periodic table shows this order must be wrong, and it is. The general scheme of events for Type I explosions is so muddled as to be harder to fault. No mention is made of mass accretion to a critical threshold as the key standardisation mechanism for Type Ia explosions. It is variously suggested that uniformity is due to a one solar mass limit on burning before core collapse, or to the ejecta consisting predominantly of iron and heavier elements. And yet we were just told that the iron decomposed to neutrons, protons and neutrinos. But hold on, some iron is converted to radioactive nickel, and yet about seven tenths of a solar mass is ejected as iron in a final burst of neutrinos.

I read as far as p90 where it said that supernovae had been detected in galaxies "beyond redshift unity, corresponding to a distance of about 10 billion megaparsecs"! I wondered what sort of co-moving coordinates were in mind for the observable universe, and decided to give up and stick with Google rather than read further. Wikipedia is a good source on supernovae. So is The Magic Furnace by Marcus Chown.

A state-of-the-art guide to our extraordinary universe. ****
Professor Joseph Silk has written a mind-expanding account of the latest developments in cosmology. Topics covered include the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, galaxy formation, black holes, the ultimate fate of the universe and the role of God in cosmology. Each of the 20 short chapters are headed with thought-provoking quotations from poets, writers and scientists. Occasionally, Prof Silk assumes too much knowledge on the part of the reader but it's worth persevering with this fascinating book which gives an up-to-date picture of the origin and evolution of our extraordinary universe.

A state-of-the-art guide to our extraordinary universe. ****

Professor Joseph Silk has written a mind-expanding account of the latest developments in cosmology. Topics covered include the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, galaxy formation, black holes, the ultimate fate of the universe and the role of God in cosmology.
Each of the 20 short chapters are headed with thought-provoking quotations from poets, writers and scientists.
Occasionally, Prof Silk assumes too much knowledge on the part of the reader but it's worth persevering with this fascinating book which gives an up-to-date picture of the origin and evolution of our extraordinary universe.

it's a strange cosmos we live in! ***
Overall, this is a well written book by Prof. Silk. It is my opinion that this book is not for a broader audience. One would require at least some notions about science, physics, cosmology in order to really follow the story. Notwithstanding, the story is nice. At the end of the book, Silk is 'freely borrowing' from science fiction, philosophy and theology and hence, this is the most interesting part of the book. Overall, it is worth reading this book.

it's a strange cosmos we live in! ***

Overall, this is a well written book by Prof. Silk. It is my opinion that this book is not for a broader audience. One would require at least some notions about science, physics, cosmology in order to really follow the story.
Notwithstanding, the story is nice. At the end of the book, Silk is 'freely borrowing' from science fiction, philosophy and theology and hence, this is the most interesting part of the book. Overall, it is worth reading this book.