Wrinkles in Time Reprint Edition

Excellent!!!

This is an interesting and well written book by the person that lived the adventure of scientific discovery. If you are interested in the story of our existence from almost the very beginning of time, then this is the book for you.

George Fitzgerald Smoot III (born 1945) is an American astrophysicist and cosmologist, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006 for his work on the Cosmic Background Explorer with John C. Mather.

[NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 331-page hardcover edition.]

He wrote in the Preface to this 1993 book, “Tremendous public interest in the origin and evolution of the universe followed the announcement of the discovery of wrinkles in the fabric of space-time by the COBE satellite in 1992. Many people asked me questions in person, and to a greater extent by phone and mail. Though I would have liked to answer each, the volume was so great that I could not. At that time Keay Davidson approached me and proposed writing a book on the subject… the book is relatively short and easy to read… we did sacrifice some themes, such as the human chain of science… Also cut are the painstaking details and the great efforts involved… The hope is that this oversimplification makes the cosmology more interesting and accessible. To the reader: This book is designed to be an easy read that still contains the full concepts and essential ideas of modern cosmology.”

He explains in the first chapter, “it wasn’t until 1964 that the [Big Bang] theory emerged as the dominant explanation of how the universe came to be the way it is. In that year two American radio astronomers discovered what appeared to be the dim afterglow of the ancient cataclysmic event. That afterglow, an all-pervasive hum of radiation… is known as cosmic background radiation, and it provides us with a faded snapshot of the universe as it was some three hundred thousand years after the big bang. It is within the background radiation that my colleagues and I hoped to discover our wrinkles in time, the Holy Grail of cosmology.” (Pg. 9)

He continues, “To its discoverers, the background radiation from all regions of the universe looked uniform, a picture showing a smooth fabric of space and energy. But in order for structures to condense from the products of the big bang, the smooth fabric must have borne tiny wrinkles, fluctuations in temperature caused by areas of higher density. According to the big bang theory, matter (familiar and unfamiliar) could have condenses and subsequently formed galactic structures in such areas through gravity. These wrinkles---we can also call them cosmic seeds, from which the galaxies grew---must have been present, otherwise modern cosmology, and specifically the big bang theory, would be in serious trouble.” (Pg. 12-13)

He cautions, “It may appears from this description that the universe---and our existence in it---was the result of a lucky break: a slight excess of matter produced as a result of violating rules at the right time. This may be but one of countless possible outcomes of that miniscule slice of time following the big bang, or it may be an inevitability given the laws of physics that operated then. We do not yet know. This pursuit of antimatter, which has obsessed many of us for so long, has forced us to face one of the key properties---and toughest challenges---of cosmology: namely, the need to extrapolate physical laws discovered on Earth to the cosmos. This extrapolation seems to work admirably for most of the history of the universe. But it may begin to break down as we approach the instant of the big bang. That, indeed, is terra incognita.” (Pg. 112)

He discusses the Anthropic Principle: “Saying that things must be as they are simply because we exist can lead to a fatally provincial and narcissistic view of the universe. Many things that cosmologists thought in 1974 were miraculously fine-tuned to allow life and human existence are neatly and powerfully explained by inflation. In their book The Early Universe, Rocky Kolb and Mike Turner state: ‘It is unclear to one of the authors how a concept as lame as the ‘anthropic idea’ was ever elevated to the status of a principle.’ I agree. I think that a fuller set of observations will lead to models and theories that will gracefully and easily explain why things are the way they are. Whatever these future discoveries and concepts are, I am confident that, like inflation, they will astound and delight us with their elegant simplification and unification of nature.” (Pg. 191)

He recalls, “By early 1992 the continued inability to detect wrinkles in the background radiation had become a serious embarrassment for cosmology and, specifically, for big bang theory… Had we failed to detect wrinkles… the science would have been in deep trouble.” (Pg. 273) He goes on, “The search for the wrinkles had been a long endeavor, stretching back more than fifteen years… All along I had been making simulations of how the wrinkles should look if the inflationary big bang theory was correct. There would be wrinkles of all sizes, from large to small, but with the same average area of sky occupied by each size class and the same average variation in amplitude… Inflation theory predicted such a size distribution, the products of quantum fluctuations at the instant of creation. This kind of size distribution of wrinkles would lead to the formation of structures of different sizes that we see in the universe today.” (Pg. 278)

After he made the announcement of the discovery, “For me, the moment marked the culmination of an eighteen-year search, and for cosmology a major milestone on the long journey to understanding the nature of the universe. Very simply, the discovery of the wrinkles salvaged big bang theory at a time when detractors were attacking in increasing numbers. The result indicated that gravity could indeed have shaped today’s universe from the tiny quantum fluctuations that occurred in the first fraction of a second after creation… The discovery of the wrinkles that were present in the fabric of time at three hundred thousand years after creation… gives us a way of understanding how structures of all sizes, from galaxies to superclusters, could have formed as the universe evolved during the past 15 billion years.” (Pg. 282-283)

He admits, “We simply do not know enough yet whether there was a beginning of the universe, and so the origin of space-time remains in terra incognita. No question is more fundamental or more magical, whether cast in scientific or theological terms. My conviction---perhaps I should say my faith---is that science will continue to move every closer to the moment of creation, facilitated by the ever-great simplicity we find there… in combination with certain concepts such as inflation, it is possible to envisage creation of the universe from almost nothing---not nothing, but practically nothing. Almost creation ex nihilo, but not quite… ‘Why’ questions are not amenable to scientific inquiry and will always reside within philosophy and theology, which may provide solace if not material explication.” (Pg. 292-293)

He continues, “The list of cosmic coincidences required for our existence in this universe is long… This concatenation of coincidences has been termed the anthropic principle. In fact, it is merely a statement of the obvious: Had things been different, we would not exist. It may be that many different universes are possible, and many may exist in parallel with our own. Inflation theory can be interpreted in this way, with our universe budding off a larger fabric of space-time… My speculation, however, is that because things become simpler as we near the moment of creation, there was only a limited range of possibilities; indeed, perhaps only one, with everything so perfect that it could Have been no other way… That God had no choice in how the universe would be, and therefore need not exist? Or that God was very smart, and got it just right? In any case, science would still be left contemplating the question: Why these conditions and not others? Or perhaps the comprehensibility of the universe in there terms is sufficient explanation. The truth and treasure of the universe is its own existence, and our question for that truth will be eternal, like the universe itself.” (Pg. 293, 295)

He concludes, “To me the universe seems quite the opposite of pointless. It seems that the more we learn, the more we see how it all fits together---how there is an underlying unity to the sea of matter and stars and galaxies that surround us…. we are learning that nature is as it is not because it is the chance consequence of a random series of meaningless events; quite the opposite. More and more, the universe appears to be as it is because it MUST be that way; its evolution was written in its beginnings… there is a clear order to the evolution of the universe, moving from simplicity and symmetry to greater complexity and structure… Accidents and chance, in fact, are essential in developing the overall richness of the universe. In that sense… Einstein had the right idea: God does not play dice with the universe. Though individual events happen as a matter of chance, there is an overall inevitability to the development of sophisticated complex systems. The development of beings capable of questioning and understanding the universe seems quite natural. I would be quite surprised if such intelligence has not arisen many places in our universe… The religious concept of creation flows from a sense of wonder at the existence of the universe and our place in it. The scientific concept of creation encompasses no less a sense of wonder: We are awed by the ultimate simplicity and power of the creativity of physical nature---and by its beauty on all scales.” (Pg. 296-297)

Smoot (or perhaps his cowriter) tells the story and its history in a lively manner; this book will be of interest to all those looking for a “popular” presentation of Smoot’s discoveries and their implications.

George Fitzgerald Smoot III (born 1945) is an American astrophysicist and cosmologist, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006 for his work on the Cosmic Background Explorer with John C. Mather.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1993 book, "Tremendous public interest in the origin and evolution of the universe followed the announcement of the discovery of wrinkles in the fabric of space-time by the COBE satellite in 1992. Many people asked me questions in person, and to a greater extent by phone and mail. Though I would have liked to answer each, the volume was so great that I could not. At that time Keay Davidson approached me and proposed writing a book on the subject... the book is relatively short and easy to read... we did sacrifice some themes, such as the human chain of science... Also cut are the painstaking details and the great efforts involved... The hope is that this oversimplification makes the cosmology more interesting and accessible. To the reader: This book is designed to be an easy read that still contains the full concepts and essential ideas of modern cosmology."

He explains in the first chapter, "it wasn't until 1964 that the [Big Bang] theory emerged as the dominant explanation of how the universe came to be the way it is. In that year two American radio astronomers discovered what appeared to be the dim afterglow of the ancient cataclysmic event. That afterglow, an all-pervasive hum of radiation... is known as cosmic background radiation, and it provides us with a faded snapshot of the universe as it was some three hundred thousand years after the big bang. It is within the background radiation that my colleagues and I hoped to discover our wrinkles in time, the Holy Grail of cosmology." (Pg. 9)

He continues, "To its discoverers, the background radiation from all regions of the universe looked uniform, a picture showing a smooth fabric of space and energy. But in order for structures to condense from the products of the big bang, the smooth fabric must have borne tiny wrinkles, fluctuations in temperature caused by areas of higher density. According to the big bang theory, matter (familiar and unfamiliar) could have condenses and subsequently formed galactic structures in such areas through gravity. These wrinkles---we can also call them cosmic seeds, from which the galaxies grew---must have been present, otherwise modern cosmology, and specifically the big bang theory, would be in serious trouble." (Pg. 12-13)

He cautions, "It may appears from this description that the universe---and our existence in it---was the result of a lucky break: a slight excess of matter produced as a result of violating rules at the right time. This may be but one of countless possible outcomes of that miniscule slice of time following the big bang, or it may be an inevitability given the laws of physics that operated then. We do not yet know. This pursuit of antimatter, which has obsessed many of us for so long, has forced us to face one of the key properties---and toughest challenges---of cosmology: namely, the need to extrapolate physical laws discovered on Earth to the cosmos. This extrapolation seems to work admirably for most of the history of the universe. But it may begin to break down as we approach the instant of the big bang. That, indeed, is terra incognita." (Pg. 112)

He discusses the Anthropic Principle: "Saying that things must be as they are simply because we exist can lead to a fatally provincial and narcissistic view of the universe. Many things that cosmologists thought in 1974 were miraculously fine-tuned to allow life and human existence are neatly and powerfully explained by inflation. In their book The Early Universe, Rocky Kolb and Mike Turner state: `It is unclear to one of the authors how a concept as lame as the `anthropic idea' was ever elevated to the status of a principle.' I agree. I think that a fuller set of observations will lead to models and theories that will gracefully and easily explain why things are the way they are. Whatever these future discoveries and concepts are, I am confident that, like inflation, they will astound and delight us with their elegant simplification and unification of nature." (Pg. 191)

He recalls, "By early 1992 the continued inability to detect wrinkles in the background radiation had become a serious embarrassment for cosmology and, specifically, for big bang theory... Had we failed to detect wrinkles... the science would have been in deep trouble." (Pg. 273) He goes on, "The search for the wrinkles had been a long endeavor, stretching back more than fifteen years... All along I had been making simulations of how the wrinkles should look if the inflationary big bang theory was correct. There would be wrinkles of all sizes, from large to small, but with the same average area of sky occupied by each size class and the same average variation in amplitude... Inflation theory predicted such a size distribution, the products of quantum fluctuations at the instant of creation. This kind of size distribution of wrinkles would lead to the formation of structures of different sizes that we see in the universe today." (Pg. 278)

After he made the announcement of the discovery, "For me, the moment marked the culmination of an eighteen-year search, and for cosmology a major milestone on the long journey to understanding the nature of the universe. Very simply, the discovery of the wrinkles salvaged big bang theory at a time when detractors were attacking in increasing numbers. The result indicated that gravity could indeed have shaped today's universe from the tiny quantum fluctuations that occurred in the first fraction of a second after creation... The discovery of the wrinkles that were present in the fabric of time at three hundred thousand years after creation... gives us a way of understanding how structures of all sizes, from galaxies to superclusters, could have formed as the universe evolved during the past 15 billion years." (Pg. 282-283)

He admits, "We simply do not know enough yet whether there was a beginning of the universe, and so the origin of space-time remains in terra incognita. No question is more fundamental or more magical, whether cast in scientific or theological terms. My conviction---perhaps I should say my faith---is that science will continue to move every closer to the moment of creation, facilitated by the ever-great simplicity we find there... in combination with certain concepts such as inflation, it is possible to envisage creation of the universe from almost nothing---not nothing, but practically nothing. Almost creation ex nihilo, but not quite... `Why' questions are not amenable to scientific inquiry and will always reside within philosophy and theology, which may provide solace if not material explication." (Pg. 292-293)

He continues, "The list of cosmic coincidences required for our existence in this universe is long... This concatenation of coincidences has been termed the anthropic principle. In fact, it is merely a statement of the obvious: Had things been different, we would not exist. It may be that many different universes are possible, and many may exist in parallel with our own. Inflation theory can be interpreted in this way, with our universe budding off a larger fabric of space-time... My speculation, however, is that because things become simpler as we near the moment of creation, there was only a limited range of possibilities; indeed, perhaps only one, with everything so perfect that it could Have been no other way... That God had no choice in how the universe would be, and therefore need not exist? Or that God was very smart, and got it just right? In any case, science would still be left contemplating the question: Why these conditions and not others? Or perhaps the comprehensibility of the universe in there terms is sufficient explanation. The truth and treasure of the universe is its own existence, and our question for that truth will be eternal, like the universe itself." (Pg. 293, 295)

He concludes, "To me the universe seems quite the opposite of pointless. It seems that the more we learn, the more we see how it all fits together---how there is an underlying unity to the sea of matter and stars and galaxies that surround us.... we are learning that nature is as it is not because it is the chance consequence of a random series of meaningless events; quite the opposite. More and more, the universe appears to be as it is because it MUST be that way; its evolution was written in its beginnings... there is a clear order to the evolution of the universe, moving from simplicity and symmetry to greater complexity and structure... Accidents and chance, in fact, are essential in developing the overall richness of the universe. In that sense... Einstein had the right idea: God does not play dice with the universe. Though individual events happen as a matter of chance, there is an overall inevitability to the development of sophisticated complex systems. The development of beings capable of questioning and understanding the universe seems quite natural. I would be quite surprised if such intelligence has not arisen many places in our universe... The religious concept of creation flows from a sense of wonder at the existence of the universe and our place in it. The scientific concept of creation encompasses no less a sense of wonder: We are awed by the ultimate simplicity and power of the creativity of physical nature---and by its beauty on all scales." (Pg. 296-297)

Smoot (or perhaps his cowriter) tells the story and its history in a lively manner; this book will be of interest to all those looking for a "popular" presentation of Smoot's discoveries and their implications.

This is a wonderful book about one person's pursuit of an answer to one of the most important questions in cosmology. This is not to say that the person telling the tale is solely responsible for the discovery. On the contrary, George Smoot goes to great lengths to describe and compliment the work of his many colleagues on COBE and related projects. But his enthusiasm for the topic infuses the story with the excitement borne of intense personal commitment. I also feel the book is well-written overall. I learned a lot about cosmology from reading this book, in particular the power of inflationary theory and why it is considered so important. I laughed out loud at the description of their trials with ballooning and adventures in rough locales such as the Brazilian jungle and Antarctica. It's true that some things are repeated more than seems necessary, but I suspect this was the result of an editor inserting frequent guideposts to help a lay reader to keep track of the arc of a somewhat complex story. I would especially recommend this book to young researchers. It is an inspirational story of achieving a great scientific feat after many years of hard work, but there is also a pragmatic thread throughout with regard to selecting good research topics, obtaining funding, working on research teams, etc.