M. Lawford
The first half of the book discusses issues concerning the Big-Bang / Steady
State debate, and this is the primary backdrop to the almost tragic conflict.
Hawkins provides us with characters, ideologies, betrayal and denial in
a story that even Shakespeare would never have believed. We meet Fred Hoyle
who, against the odds and the general derision of the scientific community,
clings to his belief of the universe as being an infinite `steady' body that
did not come into existence with a bang. We already know the end of that story
but few people actually understand the various acts and scenes that brought
about the finale.
It is through Hoyle's struggle that Hawkins explains how the scientific
community (particularly the contemporary community) decides
the `truth' of scientific theories; assessing which ideas advance or damage
already accepted `truths'. Hawkins makes frequent comparisons between
scientific dogma and its religious cousin and with a certain validity, even
citing Big-Bang theory as the dogmatic extension of religious belief. The
picture revealed is of a community fractured along many lines. There is the
old school, who wield influence by virtue of reputation and position, there
are the young researchers and students who, we are told, tend to restrain
their studies and ideas to those that would please their superiors and then we
have the rebels like Hoyle and Hawkins himself.
Much is made of the use and misuse of observational evidence and its relation
to theories and it is in these early chapters that Hawkins builds the reader's
natural scepticism into distrust. We are told of the enourmous error margins
inherent in some of the key values used to discern the age of our universe. It
also becomes clear just how inter-woven important ideas are, for instance, if
the age of the universe is `X' then its density must be `Y' and
the matter that we cannot see cannot be composed of `Z'. If the
value of `X' is interpreted differently then the whole nature of `Y'
and `Z' change. For a reader who is new to the field of astronomy and accepts
the publicised view of the universe, this can be very disconcerting.
This feeling of distrust extends even as far as the Hubble Space Telescope,
which Hawkins intimates is being misrepresented. The point is made that data
is selectively fit to theories, and any extraneous data that fails the theory
is hushed up or put down to natural inconcistency in data collection or signal
variation. The lasting image is of a pool of collected data from out of which
scientists pull the results that they need to round out their theories.
Hawkins here takes the opportunity to attack theories themselves on
philosophical grounds. He maintains that theories proposed before a body of
suportive evidence is available are invalid. He advocates a firmly descriptive
type of science where extrapolation is held down to a minimum. It is with this
groundwork that he moves on to discuss his personal story of discovery and
publicity.
The second part of the book moves along at rather a quicker pace than its
counterpart, due mostly to the author having finished the business of knocking
the reader off balance. Here we are told how Hawkins (with a little
inspiration from various sources) discovered the nature of the missing mass
that has long been supposed to invisibly fill our universe. The discovery
itself is covered in a very low key way, covering the steps taken in a
methodical and unconfusing way. The central idea of micro-lensing is
clearly presented and explained in terms of its parent, gravitational lensing.
The revelation that the missing matter has been literally in front of our eyes
is at first hard to credit but Hawkins' persuasive and concise manner ensures
that the reader leaves the section with much more understanding of the
universe than at the start. In particular, his descriptions of space-time and
gravity deserve a mention. Repetition of key points does occasionally become
obtrusive but Hawkins is willing to risk this in order that he may not follow
previous scientists and lose his audience amid the `facts'.
Hunting Down the Universe can be read in a number of ways. It can
be read as a damning insight into the affairs of those we are taught to
believe, it can be seen as a pop-science book that re-presents black holes and
space-time to a beleaguered audience or it can be read as an account of one
scientist trying hard to adhere to the responsibilities of science despite the
influence of peer pressure. The pagecount devoted to the politics of science
will be too much for some readers and in places it does become tiresome to
follow, but it is a neccessary part of Hawkins' personal story as the
correlation between Hoyle and Hawkins grows. Even here though, Hawkins catches
the reader off guard again and his story ends differently to Hoyle's. While
Hoyle's theories are not likely to be believed by the general populace,
Hawkins has been fortunate enough to find the solution to the missing mass
problem in a way that the public can conceptualise if not fully understand,
and so the establishment's own methods can now work for him rather than
against.
The book will benefit from additional proof reading when the second edition comes around but these minor mistakes do not detract from the message of the book. At times bitter, at times hopefull, Michael Hawkins allows us a graphic insight into the harsh universe of scientific endeavour.
